Controlling Land: Historical Representations of News Discourse in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
News discourse about treaty issues privileges postcolonial discourses about ownership and governance of land and excludes a wide range of indigenous voices. this paper explores how news items interweave the frame “indigenous peoples as a threat” into their coverage of two events, analyzed as separate case studies, that have significant implications for the control of land in British Columbia. The first case study event is the Nisga'a's 1998 referendum on the Nisga'a Treaty and the second is the 2002 British Columbia Treaty Referendum. Reportage of both events was highly racialized and organized around the presumed threat that indigenous peoples pose to settler values. Discourse orbits around several rhetorical arguments, including “‘our’ government is colluding with First Nations to impose race-based governments on British Columbians; and “the will of the majority must prevail over the political maneuverings of minorities and other ‘special interest groups.'” While news discourse focused on the potentially destructive impact of treaties on settler interests, any discussion of the enormous risks treaties represent for indigenous peoples was completely absent.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".