One Little, Two Little, Three Canadians: The Indians of Canada Pavilion and Public Pedagogy, Expo 1967
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amidst the colonial celebrations of Canada’s Centennial and the pedagogical landscape of 1960s Canada, the Indians of Canada Pavilion at Expo 67 resisted. The Indigenous-led celebration of survivance stood as a mounted critique of historical and present-day settler colonialism. While the pavilion has been remembered as a turning point for Indigenous art and politics, this essay considers its educational impact. Informed by the work of Susan D. Dion, who advocates for ways that Canadians can hear stories that contradict their own subject positions, the author suggests that many visitors were not willing or not able to hear the critical re-education the pavilion offered. The pavilion also anticipated the National Indian Brotherhood’s criticism of colonial education in Indian Control of Indian Education (1972). Visitors, who included non-Indigenous Canadians, residential school students, and teachers, encountered the pavilion in different ways. Using archival documents, audio and film footage, and oral history, this essay frames the Indians of Canada Pavilion as a pedagogical act of resistance to the Centennial year’s colonial pedagogies (the Canadian Pavilion, Expo’s anthem, the Confederation Train, and formal education). In this reading, education is the pavilion’s solution, but also its greatest barrier.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".