Attitudes Toward “Miscegenation” in Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia, 1860–19141
Bibliographic record
Abstract
in 1863 a new word was added to the language of race. 2 Coined in London for a social phenomenon that the general public found both troubling and titillating, the word "miscegenation" -interbreeding between members of what were presumed to be distinct "races"-coupled the most intimate act of inclusion with an idea promoting social exclusion. In so doing, it epitomized what Ann Stoler has identified as a fundamental contradiction of colonialism-that it must simultaneously incorporate and distance the colonized to maintain the boundaries of colonial rule. 3 Sylvia Van Kirk brilliantly documented this tension in her work on intermarriage in the fur trade and in early colonial society in Canada. In "Many Tender Ties" and subsequent articles, notably "From 'Marrying-In' to 'Marrying-Out': Changing Patterns of Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal Marriage in Colonial Canada, " she noted the increasingly racist discourses directed toward Native and mixed-blood women upon the arrival of white women in the British North American colonies as the latter evolved toward colonies of settlement. 4 Although her own work has focused primarily on an earlier period of Canadian history than that considered in this article, Van Kirk drew attention to the colonial attitudes to intermarriage and miscegenation in the settler society of late
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".