A Model of Civilization: Imperial Projects, Indigenous Peoples, and “Domiciliation” in Upper Canada, 1784–1844
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the 1780s to the 1840s, First Nations leaders and imperial officials in the Great Lakes region frequently made common cause to promote the establishment of Indigenous communities within the territories claimed by the British Empire. Largely made up of refugees from across the newly established international border, these settlements offered Indigenous Peoples the possibility of safety and prosperity, while imperial administrators viewed them as crucial props to British power. Although these projects often invoked the discourse of civilization, the approach they advocated was a far cry from the vision of assimilation that is often understood by “civilization” in today’s historiography. Drawing on the model of the nations domiciliées of the St. Lawrence Valley, these projects could be better understood as following a model of “domiciliation,” defined by military alliance, Indigenous autonomy, and the selective adoption of elements of transatlantic culture. This model, however, was consistently challenged by a discourse of “half-civilization” that by the mid-1840s gave rise to a more totalizing policy of assimilation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".