Frank Speck and the Moisie River Incident: Anthropological Advocacy and the Question of Aboriginal Fishing Rights in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'A. examine le role de Frank Speck en tant que mediateur dans le domaine des droits des autochtones au debut du vingtieme siecle au Canada. Il demontre comment le role de Speck en tant qu'ethnologue a ete profondement marque par son role d'intervenant. Parallelement, il tente de montrer comment le travail que Speck a accompli en tant qu'intervenant a ete influence par les donnees ethnologiques qu'il a recueillies. L'A. utilise un incident qui est survenu alors que Speck etait sur le terrain en 1912, dans le contexte du developpement des reglements coloniaux pour controler et administrer les pecheries au Canada et au Quebec au dix-neuvieme siecle. Il montre pourquoi les modeles traditionnels d'utilisation des terres et de conservation etaient a l'oppose de la presence croissante des regimes coloniaux et de leur controle d'une industrie des peches grandissante au Quebec. Il etablit des liens entre l'histoire de ce conflit et la science naissante de l'anthropologie au debut du vingtieme siecle, en approfondissant les relations entre l'ethnologie et l'intervention politique durant les premieres annees de l'anthropologie au Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".