MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403960101 · doi:10.3138/jcs.49.2.25

The Role of Colonial Artists in the Dispossession and Displacement of the Maliseet, 1790s-1850s

2015· article· en· W2403960101 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Andrea Bear Nicholas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismHistoryPopulationHomelandNova scotiaEthnologySociologyArchaeologyLawPolitical sciencePoliticsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay addresses the role of colonial artists in the dispossession and displacement of Maliseet people in New Brunswick from the 1790s to the early 1850s. It explains that the process of dispossession began in the 1760s when authorities in Nova Scotia granted away over a million and a half acres of Maliseet homeland on the St. John River. Since most of those lands were not actually settled at the time, the Maliseets were not greatly displaced until after the close of the American Revolution, when nearly 15,000 Loyalists invaded and settled on the river, forcing Maliseets off lands that included ancient village sites. Massive lumbering in their hunting territories and new pressures on fish and game brought severe poverty, disease, and suffering to the Maliseets. While early colonial artists did at least provide documentation on Maliseet presence, the artwork tended to present them as relatively well off and as picturesque curiosities. Petitions and other written records from the era tell a starkly different story. This essay suggests that artistic misrepresentations of reality may have contributed not only to ongoing dispossession and displacement, but also to the near-extinction of the Maliseet population in New Brunswick by the mid-1800s.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207