Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract From 1598 to 1867, European colonizers, first French, then British, created colonial settlements throughout much of today’s Canada that resulted in dispossession of Indigenous peoples. For European settlers, imperial policies, settler interactions with Indigenous peoples, and the interplay of class, gender, ethnic, and racial forces created a mélange of social policies, both formal and informal. Overall, there was a steady march toward private charitable institutions whose policies assumed the preservation of rigid social hierarchies created by colonization but in a context of moral responsibility on the part of elites to alleviate destitution among “deserving” settlers. This chapter’s examination of French and British policies toward Indigenous peoples traces an effort to restrict Indigenous self-sufficiency and destroy their cultural autonomy. It also itemizes the church and private charitable efforts to respond to poverty among settlers, analyzing why, despite help offered to many individual households, there was little impact upon the overall rate of destitution. Throughout the period in question, the hegemonic view of the political and economic elites was to ignore the social determinants of well-being; individuals and families must care for themselves with charities stepping in to aid the destitute for limited periods and the state serving as the last resort of aid to the destitute and the ill.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.002 |
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".