“Anyone not on the list might as well be dead”: Aboriginal Peoples and the Censuses of Canada, 1851–1916
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The enumeration of First Nations and Métis peoples in Canada must be considered differently from other ethnic minorities because of their colonial relationship with the state. Over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Aboriginal peoples in Canada became increasingly subject to a separate regulatory body, the Department of Indian Affairs, and legislation such as the Indian Act, both of which affected the information recorded by the census. As the census extended to Canada’s north and west, Indian Affairs officials often acted as census enumerators, and, consequently, its creation of the legal categories of Métis and status Indian blurred the ethnic definitions laid out by the census instructions. Some Aboriginal peoples viewed the census as part of the ongoing process of their nation-to-nation relationship with the British Crown or the Canadian government, but many refused to cooperate with enumerators, seeing them as part of the colonial order which Indian Affairs attempted to impose upon them. Because the public use samples of census data being released by various Canadian universities will result in new social history research, scholars need to understand the ties between colonialism and the enumeration of Aboriginal peoples in order to interpret the data.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".