Colonial Ghosts in Indigenous-British Conflict: A Revisiting of Two 1726 Piracy Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: En 1726, cinq hommes qui faisaient partie de la communauté mi'kmaq depuis longtemps furent pendus pour piraterie à Boston. En effectuant l'analyse de sources telles que des bulletins d'information du 18e siècle, des dossiers de procès et des données généalogiques, cet article examine les débats portant sur la place des Métis parmi les Mi'kmaq et la conception élastique de la communauté chez les Autochtones. Cette étude de cas présente également une nouvelle façon de comprendre l'agentivité, les actions et l'expérience vécue d'hommes d'origine acadienne et autochtone – des « fantômes coloniaux » ou des colons disparus des documents de l'époque coloniale britannique – tout en soulignant l'importance de revoir les désignations identitaires utilisées par l'empire et d'accorder davantage de poids aux relations de parenté, à la culture et aux pratiques locales. Abstract: In 1726 five men who had long been part of a Mi'kmaw community were hanged for piracy in Boston. Through an analysis of sources such as 18th-century newsletters, trial records, and genealogical data, this article addresses the debates over the place of Métis among the Mi'kmaq and the practice of Indigenous community elasticity. It also presents a new way to understand the agency, actions, and lived experience of Indigenous Acadian men – "colonial ghosts" or colonists who disappeared from the colonial record – while underlining the importance of revising imperial identity designations as well as of placing greater weight on local kinship, culture, and practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".