Paradises Lost? The Constitutional Politics of “Indian” Enfranchisement in Canada, 1857–1900
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enfranchisement was the legal process for an individual or community to end their legal status as “Indians” under the Indian Act. The Canadian government hoped it would break up bands before assimilating them into settler society. This article aims to excavate the untold story of this attempt to extinguish special “Indian” status in the nineteenth century. It first traces enfranchisement as part of a Victorian discourse of civilization and as a specific Canadian legal process for the assimilation of “Indian” subjects. It then uses new archival sources to tell the untold story of the politics of enfranchisement over the second half of the nineteenth century. The article concludes with the strange case of Doctor Oronhyatekha (aka Mr. Martin). His story is of one exceptional individual’s attempt to pursue an alter”Indian” enfranchisement can help us better appreciate what is at stake in contemporary questions of belonging within the agonistic relationships of the Canadian and Indigenous constitutional orders.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".