MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338923068

Native Lands and Livelihoods in British Columbia

2002· article· en· W2338923068 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cole Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical geography · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismLivelihoodGovernment (linguistics)IndigenousState (computer science)GeographyAsidePower (physics)Political economyPolitical scienceEconomyDevelopment economicsEconomicsEcologyAgricultureArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The allocation of Indian reserves in British Columbia defined two primal spaces, one for native people and the other for virtually everyone else. By the 1930s, the space set aside for native people comprised more than 1,500 small, scattered reserves, totaling one-third of 1 percent of the land of the province—a reserve geography with no close North American equivalent. Fundamentally, this geography was the product of the pervasive settler assumptions, backed by the colonial state, that most of the land they encountered in British Columbia was waste, waiting to be put to productive use; or, where native people obviously were using the land, that their uses were inefficient and therefore should be replaced. Such assumptions, coupled with settlers’ self-interest and a huge imbalance of power, were sufficient to dispossess native people of most of their land. The native people of British Columbia were located in many small reserves rather than a few large ones (as many had advocated) for a variety of reasons. The provincial government argued that small reserves would force native people into the workplace to learn the habits of industry, thrift, and materialism, thus becoming civilized, and (less often stated), to provide cheap seasonal labor for burgeoning industries—arguments that depended on both colonial self-interest and altruism. In the early years of colonial resettlement there was concern that concentrations of native people could pose a military threat to settlers. Moreover, government officials soon found that native people were intensely attached to their habitual places and that there was not the military and bureaucratic power at hand to move them or to make the moves stick. Given that reserves would be located within traditional territories, there was some attempt, more at some times than at others, to allocate the places that were most precious to native people, such as their villages, gravesites, cultivated fields, and fishing sites—none of which required much space. Native people identified such places to the reserve commissioners charged with allocating reserve lands. They never convinced the provincial government to allocate larger reserves that could accommodate traditional resource procurement, commercial logging or, for that matter, to allocate much agricultural land. Nor was the dominion—the legal custodian of native rights but also a partner in the Canadian confederation—ever quite prepared to take the prov-

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical geographySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207