Dammed: The Politics of Loss and Survival in Anishinaabe Territory. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, by Brittany Luby
Bibliographic record
Abstract
B rittany Luby opens Dammed by positioning herself as an Anishinaabewoman and historian within the context of her book.Beginning with an overview of the book, Luby discusses the role of the Winnipeg River as a provider of food and resources, as a site for hydroelectric development, and as a marker of boundary lines.She also discusses the resulting adaptation strategies of Anishinaabe families as the river was altered in the name of economic progress.Describing the cultural and economic background along the river, she introduces some of the problems experienced by local people.Luby highlights the opposing views of water held by the Anishinaabe and the settlers; one group wanted to protect relationships with the environment, and the other wanted to harness the power of water for monetary gain.The importance of fish is emphasized, as guaranteed fishing rights and access to water were fundamental to the creation of Treaty 3 in 1873.The introduction of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario (HEPCO) led to a redefinition of water rights, which led to Anishinaabe resistance and rejection of changes to reserve lands.As hydroelectric development progressed, the shape of the water and its reliability changed.The United States and Canada attempted to manage complaints about changing water levels across their shared border by forming the International Joint Commission, but Anishinaabeg were excluded from discussions.Winter ice road travel became unsafe as the Kenora and Norman dams disrupted flow patterns and weakened ice density.Fluctuating water levels reduced access to food, especially Manomin, and increased the need for wage labour.Those seeking full-time or seasonal employment were discriminated against in the town of Kenora, but in 1956, HEPCO needed a large number of Autumn Perry 1
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".