Colonial Cartography of Canadian Margins: Cultural Encounters and the Idea of <i>Métissage</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Essential to the fur trade and to colonial expansion into Canada, métissage considerably marked Canadian history by creating new cultural spaces – Métis geographies – between Aboriginal and European societies. My objective here is to investigate the role of colonial maps – from the French regime up to the late nineteenth century – in the mental representation of these specific Métis geographies and in the development and evolution of the idea of métissage. The idea of métissage reveals colonial ambivalence. The idea is, in fact, built upon the dialectic between recognition and denial, the latter mostly fed by discourses of anti-métissage. Although colonial officials were often forced to acknowledge Euro-Indian métissage at colonial margins, they never completely accepted the idea that “primitive” and European cultures could be mixed. Métissage was acceptable insofar as it was marginal (socially and spatially speaking) and did not endanger the spread of “civilization.” Maps represent colonial ambiguity toward métissage. On the one hand, given their intent to be objective accounts of geographic reality and their dependence on the geographic information provided by Aboriginal peoples, maps record, at the margins of colonial reach, the nascent manifestation of Métis geographies. On the other hand, because they are sociocultural constructions, maps are components of the discourse of anti-métissage; while Métis geographies were sometimes visually silenced, at other times they were cartographically erased.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".