Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Note on TerminologyThe names used to refer to the Aboriginal peoples of what is now Canada have undergone changes and shifts throughout history.In 1929, the time of the Franklin Motor Expedition that is the focus of this book, "Indian" was the most commonly used descriptive term for indigenous people.It is still used in legislation, such as the Indian Act.Many people now prefer the collective term "First Nations," which includes status and non-status persons and is currently applied to federally recognized bands.Given that the narrative of this book moves between past and present, I have chosen to use "First Nations" throughout, unless I am quoting.At times I use the more inclusive "Aboriginal," which encompasses all three groups of original peoples and their descendants recognized in the Canadian constitution: Indians (First Nations), Métis, and Inuit.I also use the nations' own names for themselves, wherever possible, though they may differ from those with which the expedition team was familiar.For example, Bungay, Saulteaux, and Plains or western Ojibwe were all used historically to refer to Anishinaabe peoples who moved to the Plains region of Western Canada.The autonym "Anishinaabe" is now relatively common in spoken and written English, whereas the equivalent Cree and Blackfoot autonyms, nehiyaw and Niitsitapi, are used less frequently.It is for this reason that I have chosen to use the collective names "Cree" and "Blackfoot" in this book, rather than "nehiyaw" and "Niitsitapi."Naming is a political act, and I appreciate that my decisions on this matter raise problems of historical accuracy, to which some readers may object.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".