'Wedding Bells and Colonial Hells': Indigenous-Settler Intermarriage in Colonial North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay examines the practice of Indigenous-settler intermarriage during the colonial period of North America. While historians know that intermarriage was an economic strategy used by both settler men and North American native women during the fur trade era, inaccuracies in parish records fail to demonstrate how prevalent the practice really was in this region. This paper thus presents an examination of what reasons both sides of the dynamic had for practicing interracial marriage and what benefits they derived from its execution. Indeed, the first half of the essay aims to analyze the physiological, psychological, economic, and imperialistic benefits Indigenous women, settler men, and related stakeholders enjoyed as a result of intermarriage using examples from both colonial Canada and America. The second half looks at what drawbacks resulted from intermarriage, emphasizing that these drawbacks were mainly isolated to the later years of colonization when European influence and power had spread throughout the continent. The legacy of Indigenous-settler intermarriage and the devastation of colonization persists still today which is why this topic is a worthy addition to the historical discourse.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".