MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415680772 · doi:10.1111/caje.70020

Railroads, land cessions and Indigenous nations: Evidence from Canada

2025· article· en· W4415680772 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jeff Chan, Azim Essaji, Rob Gillezeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousGeoreferenceIndigenous rightsCrown (dentistry)Narrative

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examine the role that the railroad played in the dispossession and cession of Indigenous lands within the borders of present‐day Canada. Using georeferenced data on the construction of the railroad network and on the timing, content and extent of treaties signed between the Crown and Indigenous nations, we find that the expansion of the railway network does not appear to hasten the signing of treaties or increase the area ceded. However, we find evidence consistent with the Crown engaging in treaty‐signing well in advance of railroad construction to secure the path for the transcontinental railway. We find some weak evidence that US westward expansion, as measured by nearby US population, partly explains the cession of Indigenous lands in what is now Canada. Taken together, our results indicate that the relationship between the railroad and Indigenous land dispossession looked very different in Canada from the United States. In the latter, the process was concurrent; in Canada, land cession occurred well in advance of railway construction. This forward‐looking approach accords with a historical narrative that centres the role of the railway in bringing British Columbia into Confederation and in securing the Prairies from US territorial ambitions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.011
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.120 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→