Colonies of settlement and settler colonialism in Northeastern North America, 1450–1850
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In northeastern North America, the imposition of early colonial settlement onto Indigenous territory took four distinct forms.1 In Newfoundland, it followed the contours of the dry salt-cod fishery; planned settlements, such as English Ferryland and French Plaisance, co-existed with less formal communities elsewhere. To establish Maine, initial fishing and fur trading posts were overlaid by agriculturally based settlements extending from southern New England. Despite being repeatedly expelled by the Wabanaki, English settlers used deeds and treaties to slowly establish themselves on Wabanaki land.2 In Acadie/Nova Scotia, settlement was largely in enclaves. Acadian households were spread along kilometres of coastal marshlands on the Bay of Fundy. Towns were rare and primarily limited to the fortified centres of Port Royal (under the French until 1710)/Annapolis Royal (under the British from 1710), Louisbourg (1713) and Halifax (1749). More pervasive colonial settlement did not occur until after the American Revolution. Canada – meaning the St. Lawrence region and contiguous areas – was considerably different. There, much as in Acadie, settlement was slow and, though the French later defined the region, initial migration was mixed between French and Indigenous settlers during the 1640s, ’50s and ’60s. Here more than anywhere else, French and Indigenous legal traditions interacted in complex ways. Although these four Euro-American societies may be described as colonies of settlement and made a significant impact on nearby Indigenous peoples, it was not until after the recurrent warfare of the mid-to-late eighteenth century that settler colonialism – manifested through settler sovereignty and territorial control – became suffusive, shaping the region’s overall development and subsequent nature.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".