Synonymy: Who are the Western Ojibwa? A Note on Names
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synonymy: Who are the Western Ojibwa? A Note on NamesThe people whom I am calling western Ojibwa in this book are also known in Canada as Saulteaux and plains Ojibwa, and occasionally as Bungi.Different parts of Canadian society know them by different names, and the names by which they refer to themselves differ from community to community.Today, in the eastern part of their territory, including the Peguis reserve and Winnipeg, many of them strongly prefer Ojibwa or Anishinabeg, while communities farther to the west prefer plains Ojibway or Saulteaux.Given the number of names for these people, it seems appropriate to discuss the origin of these different terms and the reasons for my choice in this book.I sincerely hope that persons who think of themselves as Saulteaux will not be offended by my choice of a different term to refer to their ancestors, and that they will understand the reasons for my choice.Looking first at the origins of these terms, it is clear that the several names by which these people became known to Europeans during the early historic period are tied to the different relationships between themselves and rival European trading companies.The French who encountered the ancestors of the western Ojibwa in the Sault Ste.Marie region wrote of them as Saulteurs (later, the term became Saulteaux) and Outchibouec (which later became Ojibwa or Chippewa).1When these and neighbouring peoples became involved in the French fur trade, contact and intermarriage between them intensified as European goods were traded from band to band on a regular basis in exchange for furs collected by Native middlemen.As well, large communities composed of several Native peoples sprang up at missions and trading posts such as Sault Ste.Marie and Michilimackinac.Developments such as these may have eroded ethnic differences between small local groups, contributing to the spread of the terms Saulteur and Ojibwa to designate many formerly separate peoples who had been connected to the Outchibouec and Saulteurs by kinship, trade relationships, and probably similarity of language and other cultural practices.2 French and Montreal-based traders referred to all these
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.006 |
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".