MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6941208987 · doi:10.11575/prism/36963

Books and Broomsticks: Prairie Indigenous Female Domestic Workers and the Canadian Outing System, 1888-1901

2019· other· en· W6941208987 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousCensusColonialismWork (physics)Vocational educationRace (biology)Domestic work

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis discusses the Canadian outing system, a direct feature of industrial schools in the prairie west prominent in the late nineteenth century. Seen as an extension of the school’s vocational training, the outing system became an outlet with which the Canadian federal government’s Department of Indian Affairs (DIA) could integrate into the lower ranks of Euro-Canadian society young Indigenous girls in a hierarchical system of labour. By examining the roles and education of Indigenous female youth in the industrial school system in the Canadian prairies, this study illuminates how, in the name of assimilation, the DIA implemented the outing system. This thesis highlights how young Indigenous women were compelled to work in homes that exemplified settler values, taking on strenuous labour in environments where attitudes of race and class dimensions were prominent. By drawing from 1901 census data and looking at the settler homes, farms, and establishments in which they worked, this thesis provides an important glimpse into the early history of domestic work for Indigenous women and girls in western Canada and offers insights into the very nature of settler colonialism in early Canadian national 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0180.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueOpen MIND→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→