The Making of a Company Colony: The Fur Trade War, the Colonial Office, and the Metamorphosis of the Hudson’s Bay Company
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article argues that between 1810 and 1816 the Hudson’s Bay Company (hbc) underwent a managerial metamorphosis: where it had previously and then only timidly claimed economic privileges and authority in North America, after this period the company’s directors in London began staking claim to authority over legal, political, and even humanitarian affairs in the area covered by its charter, Rupert’s Land. Building on arguments that have been used to theorize the East India Company, this article concludes that in making these claims the hbc became what might be called a company colony, seeking to act as both a private business and a colonial government endowed with the power of the British state. In presenting this new interpretation of the hbc’s early nineteenth-century experiences, we challenge the persistent historiographical depiction of the hbc as a business-first organization operating outside the traditional patterns of the so-called Second British Empire, thereby offering a new way of understanding both the hbc and other British chartered trading companies during the nineteenth century.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".