MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4229994320 · doi:10.24124/2014/bpgub972

Patterns of diffusion: The 1886-1888 measles epidemic and the expansion of settler influence in the Central Interior of British Columbia.

2014· dissertation· en· W4229994320 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Amanda Nicole Dinnes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsMeaslesHistoryNarrativeSettlement (finance)NewspaperGeographyIndigenousColonialismGenealogyEthnologyDemographyAncient historyEconomic historySociologyArchaeologyMedia studiesMedicineVirologyArtEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patterns of Diffusion' argues that the measles epidemic of 1886-1889 was a pivotal event in the indigenous history of British Columbia especially in its Central Interior. This conclusion is drawn primarily through the examination of Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) and Department of Indian Affairs (DIA) documents, but also from newspaper accounts, the oral histories of Imbert Orchard, and the anthropological notes of Marius Barbeau. Prior to this study, no academic work has fully examined the epidemic. Patterns of Diffusion' traces the spread of the epidemic, explores the involvement of the HBC, and examines the origins of the Skeena River Uprising, in which the epidemic was deeply involved. The incorporation of the 1886-1889 measles epidemic into the broader historical narrative contributes to our understanding of the expansion of white settlement and colonial authority in BC's Central Interior region at the end of the nineteenth century. --Leaf ii.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→