MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338923068

Native Lands and Livelihoods in British Columbia

2002· article· en· W2338923068 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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