Who are the Metis? : Olive Dickason and the emergence of a Metis historiography in the 1970s and 1980s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines contribution that historian, Olive Dickason, has made to Métis historiography. In doing so, it also examines the ways in which the origins of Métis culture and identity were represented in historical studies of the 1970s and 1980s. The question of who the Métis are is being raised publicly as a result of the recent Powley court decision. However, the question of Métis origins is not a new one; the 1970s and 1980s saw the first major period examining the history of the Métis. It was during this same period that Dickason completed her studies and produced her early work on North American contact. When determining Métis origins, the convention has been to focus on prairie peoples of French Catholic descent. Some works, though, examine Métis people outside of the prairies, pointing toward a more diverse understanding of Métis peoples and origins. While Olive Dickason follows many of the conventional patterns, she expands the literature by revealing a fluid development of Métis identity from the point of contact. In order to be able to speak of the Métis peoples and determine who has aboriginal rights as a Métis person, identity needs to be determined not only from external historical sources, but also from internal sources within the Métis communities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".