MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317512288 · doi:10.1215/00141801-2376069

Speaking of Metis: Reading Family Life into Colonial Records

2014· article· en· W2317512288 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brenda Macdougall

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnohistory · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Economy, Trade and IndustryNorthwestern University
KeywordsMetisKinshipGenealogyMainstreamIndigenousColonialismSociologyGender studiesAnthropologyHistoryEthnologyPolitical scienceLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kinship studies are the hallmark of anthropological research into Native American societies, while genealogical reconstruction is common in historical studies of the Metis. The study of kinship has a twofold outcome. It reveals the worldview of various indigenous societies as evidenced by their construction of family and other relationships. But it also serves as a means to document their differences, culturally and socially, from mainstream North American society. Genealogical research, conversely, reveals little about the mentalité of the Metis because its purpose is simply to establish a documentary link between living and historical generations. The primary records sought in such work are then used to reconstitute the lives of particular individuals within the family but are not used to evaluate the connection those individuals had to the establishment of communities or their role within a societal framework defined by a worldview. By merging kinship and genealogical methods, the research presented here reconstructs Metis genealogies in northwestern Saskatchewan, not to trace any one individual but rather to analyze the emergence of a community over time through family interconnections, and it seeks to articulate the worldview of the people as expressed through cultural norms and practices. By bridging the methodological approaches and sources, we can produce a transformative approach to studying the Metis.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnohistorySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207