Creating Interracial Intimacies: British North America, Canada, and the Transatlantic World, 1830–1914
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the domestic relationships of a number of interracial couples: Kahkewaquonaby/Peter Jones and Eliza Field; Nahnebahwequa/ Catherine Sutton and William Sutton; Kahgegagahbowh/George Copway and Elizabeth Howell; and John Ojijatekah Brant-Sero, Mary McGrath, and Frances Kirby. These unions took place within the context of and, in a number of instances, because of Native peoples’ movements across a multiple boundaries and borders within British North America, Canada, and Britain. Based in both Canadian Native historiography and work in colonial and imperial history, particularly that which focuses on gender, this article argues that international networks, such as nineteenth-century evangelicalism, the missionary movement, and circuits of performance, shaped such unions and played a central, constitutive role in bringing these individuals together. However, the article also points to the importance of exploring such large-scale processes at the biographic and individual level. It points to the different outcomes and dynamics of these relationships and argues that no one category or mode of scholarly explanation can account for these couples’ fates. The article also points to multiple and varied combinations of gender, class, and race in these relationships. It thus offers another dimension to the historiography on Native-white intimate relationships in North America which, to date, has focused mostly on relationships between white men and Native or mixed-race/Métis women. The article concludes by considering how these relationships complicate our understanding of commonly used concepts in imperial history, specifically those of domesticity and home.
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 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".