MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109130991 · doi:10.1093/whq/whaa126

<i>Masters and Servants: The Hudson’s Bay Company and Its North American Workforce, 1668–1786</i>. By Scott P. Stephen

2020· article· en· W3109130991 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ryan Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Historical Quarterly · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayBureaucracyMoral obligationObligationColonialismIndigenousFur tradeWorkforceHistoryEconomic historyPolitical scienceLawArchaeologyPoliticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC)’s impact on the European colonization of North America can scarcely be overstated. For two centuries prior to its territories’ absorption into Canada in 1870, the HBC formed the leading edge of colonialism from the Arctic Circle to the Missouri River, and from the Hudson Bay coast to the Pacific Northwest. Despite its vast reach, the HBC’s internal workings, especially in its early years, have remained mysterious, obscured by bureaucratic language, time, and distance. This book seeks to recreate the inner world of the HBC and the (mostly) men who operated it, from its founding around 1670 to its inland expansion in the 1780s. During this early period, British HBC employees traded intermittently with Cree, Nakoda, and Dene people from small outposts on Hudson Bay. Stephen demonstrates that these coastal “factories”—so named for being the households of managerial “factors”—operated according to customs of hierarchy and reciprocal obligation that British historian E.P. Thompson once called a “moral economy.” Typical of early modern society, economic and social considerations were inseparable, as masters and servants lived together in a type of self-contained business family. Commitment to this household organization and its “social and moral covenants,” Stephen argues, provided the Company with stability to survive despite its posts’ extreme geographic isolation and frequent conflicts with the French, while also reducing pressure on Indigenous lands (p. 164).

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern Historical QuarterlySame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207