MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4248161490 · doi:10.3138/jcs.39.1.115

The Emigrant and the Noble Savage: Sir Francis Bond Head’s Romantic Approach to Aboriginal Policy in Upper Canada, 1836-1838

2004· article· en· W4248161490 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Theodore Binnema, Kevin Hutchings

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanceColonialismHead (geology)GovernorSociologyLawEthnologyHistoryPolitical sciencePsychoanalysisPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir Francis Bond Head (1793-1875) was a respected man of letters and the Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada from January 1836 until March 1838. During that time he proposed to remove local Anishinaabeg peoples from their traditional territories in present-day southern Ontario and relocate them to Manitoulin Island. This article explores how Head used Romantic notions that exalted primitivism and the “noble savage” to justify this plan. In so doing it clarifies the relationship between European Romantic theory and Canadian colonial practice in the early nineteenth century. A careful analysis of Head’s Indian policy reveals that many Romantic perceptions of Aboriginal peoples, while seemingly benevolent, were consistent with colonial policies that sought to alienate Aboriginal peoples from their lands and to segregate them from contact with European settler societies

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0370.021
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Studies→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→