MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3087893786 · doi:10.3138/tjt-2020-0035

T.B.R. Westgate: Organizing Indigenous Erasure for the Anglican Church, 1920–1943

2020· article· en· W3087893786 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alan L. Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsWycliffe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousBureaucracyColonialismGovernment (linguistics)ErasureIndigenous cultureSociologyValue (mathematics)LawPolitical scienceTheologyPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Figure: see text] T.B.R. Westgate, a Canadian Anglican priest who administered his church’s national system of Indian residential schools from 1921 to 1943, developed a sophisticated and effective bureaucracy to operate them efficiently, economically, and in compliance with government standards. He entirely supported the schools’ goal of Indigenous erasure, which accorded with his settler colonial outlook, his theological position, and his overseas missionary experience. All his decisions were framed by the need to make do with funding that was very limited since neither the government nor the settler church put much value on educating a people that they disparaged and expected to disappear. In his role, Westgate also functioned as the Anglican Church’s principal advocate for the assimilation of Indigenous Peoples into settler culture. His efforts, rationales, and failures are evaluated with reference to some of the insights of settler colonial studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of Theology→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→