Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article refutes official and scholarly accounts of the history of relationships between Inuit and the Canadian state that suggest that the state neglected its Arctic citizens in the period prior to 1950. Instead, the article argues that the early decades of contact between state representatives and the Inuit witnessed the construction and deployment of a distinctive form of colonial rule. Materially, such rule involved the articulation of subsistence and mercantile modes of production, meaning that Inuit livelihoods came to depend upon blending quasi-traditional hunting and fishing practices with the trapping and trading of fox furs. Symbolically, such rule assigned Canadian state representatives the noble task of protecting the Inuit – first, from the incursion of civilization and, later, from their own putative deficiencies. Grounded in archival research focused on the area now known as the Kitikmeot, this article narrates three phases in the early evolution of colonialism, phases that can be summarized as protecting Inuit, disciplining Inuit, and defending colonial rule. Through critically re-interpreting archival documents, this article presents a robust critique of official discourses regarding early Inuit–state relationships, thereby constructing a stronger foundation for postcolonial research that gives prominence to Inuit experiences of, and responses to, those relationships.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".