MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2266293059 · doi:10.3138/cjh.ach.50.3.rev07

<i>Metis and the Medicine Line: Creating a Border and Dividing a People</i>, by Michel Hogue

2015· article· en· W2266293059 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Adam Gaudry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetisLine (geometry)ArtArt historyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metis and the Medicine Line: Creating a Border and Dividing a People, by Michel Hogue. Regina, University of Regina Press and Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 2015. 352 pp. $34.95 Cdn (paper) $32.95 US (paper). Metis and the Medicine Line comes at a time of renewed focus on Metis history, one that recognizes the immense complexity of nineteenth century Metis life. Michel Hogue's work contributes to this discussion by handling Metis as complex boundary-crossing who, while having a clear sense of themselves as Metis, are deft navigators of the social and political categories used by outsiders to situate them in numerous legal orders, particularly those of the colonial states in their midst. While Metis and the Medicine Line focuses primarily on physically crossing the forty-ninth parallel, it also explores the many other ways that nineteenth-century Indigenous people crossed boundary markers of identity, legal status, and citizenship. Hogue threads sophisticated discussions of geography, identity, political economy, and the social, political, and economic impacts these structures had on Metis throughout the nineteenth, and into the early twentieth, century. One of the strengths of Hogue's work is the ease with which he moves back and forth detailing micro and macro social processes. He profiles the boundary-crossings of Metis families like the one headed by Antoine Oullette and Angelique Bottineau who crossed the forty-ninth parallel like many of their contemporaries, to take advantage of the shifting economic and political realities of the borderlands. These behaviours also reflect the larger movements of Metis people across the medicine line, while they--again at micro and macro levels--ascribed a different meaning to it than the westward expanding empires of the East. Equally important is Hogue's focus on the ways in which Metis adapt identity boundaries to meet their ongoing needs. Unlike older works, Hogue does over-determine Metis-First Nations separation, nor does he overstate their interchangeability. From the outset, Metis and the Medicine Line respects Metis social and political distinctiveness, while at the same time highlighting the closeness with which Metis held their Indian kin. It is clear from this work that Metis and First Nations had integrated one another into their family networks, becoming real and ceremonial kin using these ways to determine who belonged. Such kinship structures were also instrumental in establishing Metis inclusion (both individual and collective) in emerging colonial policies. Navigating these kinship systems was used to restrict Indigenous access to their lands by policing who was and who was not Indian. Like crossing physical boundaries, Metis and the Medicine Line, explores this other form of border-crossing which newly defined Halfbreeds and Indians sought to insert their self-understandings onto racial and social categories given form mostly by outsiders. These newly-formed policy boundaries often placed Metis families outside of Indianness, but complex kinship relations and still-unclear policy categories allowed Metis (and other Indigenous peoples) to strategically situate themselves as Indians or Halfbreeds, and American citizens or British subjects as circumstances required. Despite attempts by the colonial authorities to limit this kind of boundary-crossing, Hogue shows that this was easier done in theory than in fact. …

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HistorySame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207