MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399728250 · doi:10.32920/26046553.v1

Underrepresented Encounters in Mining Towns: Chinese and Indigenous Relations in the Cariboo Region During the 1850s to 1920s

2024· preprint· en· W4399728250 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lily Liang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPolitical scienceGeographyEconomic geographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research paper is a historical exploration and analysis of the complex relationship between Chinese and Indigenous people in the Cariboo region during the nineteenth to twentieth centuries. Using a historical archival thematic analysis with decolonial theory, this paper examines three mediums of archival resources: the historical newspaper, The Cariboo Sentinel, C.D. Hoy's photographs and the Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs by the Government of Canada. It identifies the friendships, business exchanges and tensions that Chinese and Indigenous people encountered in the historic Cariboo region. Of particular interest to this research is how settler colonialism, whiteness and racism affected the lived experiences and societal attitudes of Chinese-Indigenous relations within the region. These archives provide a glimpse of and exposure to how racialized settler-Indigenous relationships were, both the positive and negative aspects of Chinese and Indigenous encounters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies→French-language works237,207→