Pax Britannica or Pax Indigena ? Planter Nova Scotia (1760-1782) and Competing Strategies of Pacification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With regard to Planter Nova Scotia (176082), historians have frequently been content to assume that, following the defeat of the French at Louisbourg in 1758, Aboriginal relations had little further significance for the non-Native settlement history of that part of northeastern North America. This essay argues that such a view is mistaken and offers a reexamination of certain key elements of the evidence on the Aboriginal role vis-à-vis New England and the British imperial authorities in Nova Scotia. Far from accomplishing a pacification of Nova Scotia under British rule, the events of the 1750s and early 1760s the expulsion of the Acadians, the British military victories of 1758–60, and the treaties of 1760–61 set the stage for a ten-year era during which Aboriginal and British pacification strategies competed, followed by a partial reconciliation, which was finally swept away by the Loyalist migration. These developments highlight the importance of recognizing eighteenth-century Nova Scotia as contested territory, with Aboriginal history retaining crucial importance far beyond the chronological point at which the region has been conventionally seen as a colonial entity and Aboriginal inhabitants as peripheral figures. More generally, this study contributes to the breakdown of the long-established consensus that the eighteenth century in northeastern North America represented the latter part of a 'colonial period,' and that the American Revolution then established a new and dramatic demarcation between British North America and the United States. Rather, a more complex series of patterns can be identified, in which the history of colonial settlement is just one part of a historiographical triumvirate along with imperial history and Aboriginal history.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".