Story People: Stó:lō-State Relations and Indigenous Literacies in British Columbia, 1864–1874
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Stó:lō are a group of approximately 28 different communities, which share a common language and culture in what is now generally known as the Lower Fraser Valley of southwestern British Columbia. Between 1864 and 1874, Stó:lō and neighbouring tribes presented four petitions to the colonial and (after 1871) federal government. The survival of so many Indigenous texts from this era that speak directly to the state offers a rare interpretive opportunity. In a relatively brief period of time, colonial and then provincial authorities rapidly obtained increased control over both lands and people in the emerging province. Simultaneously, Halkomelem-speaking peoples in the region swiftly developed new cultural literacies, among which was a facility with one of the central technologies of settler power: writing. As we will see in the following discussion, the earliest forms of Indigenous writing we have for this period are about land and Stó:lō peoples’ relationships with settler authorities. This series of petitions traces an important shift in settler-Indigenous relations, while also revealing a great deal about Indigenous ideas around literacy and how settler appropriation of Stó:lō land was challenged from the very earliest days. Throughout, a focus on story demonstrates how the struggles over land that have characterized Indigenous-state relations in British Columbia are also, inextricably, a struggle for narrative power.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".