Bibliographic record
Abstract
H elen Raptis provides us with an important case study of "Indian education" and the interface between Indigenous education and Canadian Indian policy.Unlike the current emphasis on the residential school system, her focus is on day schools, particularly the day schools at the west coast cannery town of Port Essington.For nearly a century, from 1871 until the destructive fires of the 1960s, Port Essington was an outpost of direct and indirect assimilation of Aboriginal populations in the northwest of British Columbia.For Aboriginal residents, the centre was the Port Essington Indian Reserve, which, despite its sorry history as a colonial ad ministrative tool, recognized an ancient Tsimshian presence and the way of life that contextualizes the narrative of the case study.The Port Essington Indian Reserve was deeded to the Kitsumkalum and Kitselas Indian Bands.These names represent the government's reorganization of the Indigenous Gitsmgeelm and Gits'ilaasű communities into distinct Indian bands with registered membership controlled by Can adian Indian policies, especially the Indian Act.Raptis's study offers insight not only on how this control changed the communities in a more profound way than simply renaming them but also on how the ancient social and economic patterns that brought the communities to Port Essington and the coast responded.Governmental education was the key to the changes, just as traditional education was central to the persistence of the cultural patterns and processes.Raptis's interweaving of documentary evidence with oral history and her examination of two distinct generations reveal the challenges that the communities faced over time as
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.676 | 0.564 |
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".