MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993122799 · doi:10.7202/031132ar

Imagining the Great White Mother and the Great King: Aboriginal Tradition and Royal Representation at the “Great Pow-wow” of 1901

2006· article· en· W1993122799 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Wade A. Henry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite (mutation)HegemonySpectacleIdentity (music)MonarchyHistoryCultural hegemonyMuhammad-AliState (computer science)Representation (politics)HEROOrder (exchange)LawSociologyGender studiesGenealogyAncient historyArtPoliticsPolitical scienceAestheticsLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1901 Royal Visit to Canada of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York (the future George V and Queen Mary) was marked by a series of ceremonies, not the least of which was the “Great Pow-wow”, staged by more than 2,000 Natives on a wide plateau outside Calgary. More than just an entertaining spectacle, the Great Pow-wow of 1901 was a hegemonic site in which competing representations of Natives, whites, and royalty converged. Officials from the Department of Indian Affairs sought to repress the expression of traditional Aboriginal culture, while other members of the state and a large segment of the press supported the participation of Natives as living examples of the heritage of British justice in Canada. For white Canadians, the pow-wow was an opportunity to define their own identity and imagine their place, and that of Natives, within the nation. At the same time, Natives used the opportunity to resist symbolic control and to ensure their presence and influence within Canada. Like other royal ceremonies, the Great Pow-wow of 1901 served as a contested site in Indian-white relations as both groups structured, manipulated, and imagined representations of themselves, each other, and above all, the monarchy, in order to both maintain and challenge the hegemonic order.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207