Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the period from 1760 to the 1860s, native sons of the fur trade of Rupert's Land were distinctly shaped by the disparate traditions of both their European fathers and aboriginal mothers. The success of the fur trade depended on the economic interdependence and mutual cooperation of these two sets of strangers. Their progeny, like their fathers and mothers, aided the British-oriented companies in whose employ they served. The examination of the attitudes which informed the manner in which native sons were depicted in the records and their educational achievements and careers within t e fur trade revealed that cultural and racial biases affected their lives, in both subtle and direct ways. These cultural and racial biases became more obvious from 1820 onward. Social, economic and political changes and the concomitant shifts in attitudes toward the native sons shed light on the particular circumstances which characterized their lives. From the 1790s onwards, native sons began to contribute their labour to the economy of the posts in significant ways. Fathers became more cognizant of the need to prepare their sons for larger roles in the fur trade and began acculturating them further to the European side of their heritage. A British-based education was sought for them. Towards the end of the eighteenth century and in the first two decades of the nineteenth century, some native sons could obtain clerkships and become managers of small posts. The attention to race and class, heightened by the arrival of white women in the 1820s, resulted in the imposition of social barriers dependent on rank and education that excluded some of the native sons and their aboriginal or mixed-descent relatives from circles that had formerly included them Additionally, the newly amalgamated company's adoption of a more rigid hierarchy and the increased emphasis on upward mobility posed difficulties and challenges for the native sons in the three decades following the 1821 merger of the Hudson's Bay Company and the North West Company, when limits were imposed on their movement within the company. In the 1850s and 60s a shift in attitude occurred and restrictions began to be eased allowing some native sons to advance in the company.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".