Colonization Off-Reserve: Settler Petitions, Anishinaabe Capital Funds, and the Department of Indian Affairs in Ontario, 1854–1910
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following treaties in Saugeen Ojibwe Nation Territory (the Bruce Peninsula, 1854), the North Shore of Lake Huron (1859), and Mnidoo Mnising (Manitoulin Island, 1862), the Department of Indian Affairs (dia) controlled land sales and the conditions for white settlement. The dia sold land to fulfill treaty obligations, administering new capital funds that generated annuity payments for treaty signatory communities. This article argues that petitions from settlers in these regions influenced how the dia managed the capital funds they held in trust. Anishinaabe funds subsidized the development of nascent settler properties and economies through dia decisions influenced by settler demands. The department invested in settler infrastructures and economies through surveys and road construction and lowered land prices and timber dues at the expense of capital funds. These decisions often went explicitly against Anishinaabe demands. Drawing on twenty-seven settler petitions, political correspondence of Anishinaabe leaders, and capital fund accounts through Orders in Council and dia annual reports, this article shows how the dia used money in Anishinaabe capital funds to support settler communities. By situating dia administrative and financial involvements off-reserve, the article demonstrates their orientation towards expanding settler economies at the expense of Anishinaabe wealth in the context of the imperial withdrawal of support for the dia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".