Settler colonialism during the quasi-state period of the activity of Hudson’s Bay Company (1670-1870)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is dedicated to the colonial activity of Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) founded in 1670 by the British for exploitation of fur in North America and conducting geographical surveying un the Northwestern region. The author sets a goal to determine the forms of organization of the European colonial settlements and peculiarities of their cooperation with the Native Americans in HBC trade operations. It is also important to ascertain the reasons for conducting reforms prior to monopolization of HBC in the fur market, as well as within the system of colonial control. The research material contains the colonization theories, archival materials of HBC, travelers’ testimonies, and analysis of the relevant legal documents. The author also applies the methods of cognitive dialectics, historical objectivism, and comparison of multifaceted sources in the context of socio-philosophical observation. The conclusion is made on the dominance of enclave topology in the colonial activity of Hudson’s Bay Company, when the European settlers resided mostly in coastal areas (forts and trading posts), as well as practices exploitative approaches towards relations with the Native Americans. However, the latter got an opportunity to sell beaver pelts to the Europeans through monetary exchange and unqualified labor. After taking over the French competitors, HBC transformed into a quasi-state, incorporating privately operated enterprise with colonial administration. The conclusion is made that the escalated discontent of the British Crown with usurpation of administrative power and business in Hudson’s Bay Company along with its engagement in monopolization of the market, led to disassembling of the aforementioned colonization model in 1870; the power was partially delegated the Canadian government.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".