‘Nothing it seems can be done about it’: Charlie Cox, Indian Affairs Timber Policy, and the Long Lac Reserve, 1924-40
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historians who have examined Canadian government administration of First Nation’s resources such as minerals and agricultural land have concluded that Ottawa often failed to manage these resources in the Natives’ best interests. This article argues that the same can be said of the manner in which the Department of Indian Affairs handled First Nation timber. The story is told by examining the case of Charles W. Cox and his roughly fifteen-year (1924–40) association with the timber licence to Long Lac Reserve 77 in northern Ontario. During this period, departmental officials consistently placed patronage considerations ahead of protecting the First Nation’s interests, breaking numerous rules and regulations in the process. They did so even though a string of observers - from members of the First Nation to federal cabinet ministers - made the department acutely aware of the irresponsible manner in which it was managing the reserve’s timber. Throughout this affair, it seemed as though no stimulus could prod government officials into fulfilling their duty as guardian of both the Natives and their resources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".