Bibliographic record
Abstract
In April 2016, historian Jerry Bannister posted an entry on the Acadiensis blog entitled “Settler Colonialism and the Future of Canadian History.” This well circulated piece summarizes a broader conversation about changing public, political, and scholarly understandings of Canada. In Bannister’s view, the increasing prominence of settler colonial approaches has brought historians and others to a significant “tipping point” or a “larger cultural shift” towards envisaging Canada as a settler colonial place. In making this point, Bannister references the rise and consolidation of settler colonial studies as an international scholarly field. In the past six years, in particular, scholars have defined, theorized, and investigated settler colonialism as a distinct and enduring mode of domination. Rooted especially in analyses of settler texts, this work focuses on identifying distinguishing characteristics of settler colonialism, including a specific concern for the dispossession and disappearance of Indigenous peoples, the long-term settlement of (favoured) newcomers, and the establishment of new political orders and settler sovereignty.1 Reflecting on the possibilities of this work for Canadian historians, Bannister concludes that “settler colonialism is where the academic winds are blowing.”2
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".