MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6921701781 · doi:10.7298/b1q4-1644

INVISIBLE RESIDENTS: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND THE QUESTION OF INDIGENOUS PRESENCE AT HOUSE C OF BRITISH FORT MICHILIMACKINAC, 1765-1781

2019· article· en· W6921701781 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeCommons (Cornell University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeIndigenousAdornmentInterpretation (philosophy)White (mutation)Visitor patternColonialism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Michel-Rolph Trouillot’s theory of “silences” states that much of the knowable past is ignored or discarded in order to create a coherent narrative, which we call “history”. Over the past 60 years, Colonial Michilimackinac has largely constructed a narrative that centers on white male traders and soldiers while silencing the presence of Indigenous peoples. Steps towards a more nuanced narrative have been made in recent years, but there is much that can still be done. This thesis attempts to evaluate evidence of Indigenous presence at House C of Fort Michilimackinac. Using personal use or adornment artifacts, ceramics, and faunal and floral remains from House C and comparative sites, I will explore the possibility that Indigenous or Métis women lived and worked at House C, despite their absence in the documentary record. My hope is that this thesis will prompt other archaeologists and academics to reconsider who or what has been silenced in the standard narrative of the fur trade. Reevaluation of the archaeological narrative could lead to more holistic interpretation at Michilimackinac, reshaping visitor experiences and how we - as scholars - create history.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.010
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeCommons (Cornell University)Same topicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207