“As Long as that Fire Burned”: Indigenous Warriors and Political Order in Upper Canada, 1837–42
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the crises of rebellion and invasion during the years 1837–42, Indigenous warriors in Upper Canada took up arms on an extensive scale. This mobilization was not the result of reactionary loyalism. Rather, like other actors of the period, First Nations communities participated in the upheavals of the Rebellion in order to further their own vision of what constituted a desirable political order within the province. By 1837, First Nations communities in Upper Canada were beset with settler violence, theft, and squatting, and successive imperial administrators had shown themselves to be unwilling or unable to fulfill their obligations to protect Indigenous property or maintain crucial diplomatic practices. First Nations themselves, however, had a clear vision of the proper Indigenous-Imperial relationship, developed over generations of diplomacy and preserved in numerous treaties, belts, speeches, petitions, and councils. It was in support of this established framework that the warriors took up arms. With their military clout suddenly amplified by the insurrectionary crisis, Indigenous leaders across the province made clear that their assistance against the Patriot threat was contingent upon the maintenance of their recognized rights and privileges in the political order of post-Rebellion Canada. While these efforts initially produced significant results, the growth of the settler state in the period following the Rebellion soon led to the decisive dismantling of this long-standing Indigenous-Imperial framework.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".