Icelandic Immigrants and First Nations People in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay I will examine the first contact between the Icelandic immigrants who settled the western shore of Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba in the late nineteenth century and the local Natives. I will discuss in detail various sources found among personal letters and diaries of Icelandic settlers. I will examine the story of these two groups during these first years of Icelandic settlement and go from the more “official” documentation of the Icelandic Immigrant Saga to its more personal and often different version. In many of the books that have been published about the experiment of establishing an Icelandic colony in Canada, not much has been written about the Natives. The main purpose of my work is to delve into these personal sources and get a more explicit view of how these two peoples experienced each other, and if these relations were friendly and profitable for one groups or not. \nFirst, a short history about the local First Nations and the story of the Icelandic settlers is summarized. Narratives of Icelandic-Canadians are introduced which contain stories about the Natives. Immigrant Icelandic-Canadians poetry and contemporary work of Icelandic-Canadians authors involving the Natives are discussed. \nThe story of the Native, John Ramsay, is introduced as well as the story of Helgi Einarsson. These two men were of great importance to the Icelandic-Canadian history. Interracial relationships also discussed. \nMy conclusion is that these relations were most often friendly and beneficial for both groups. However, the Icelanders had to choose between having a good relationship with the Natives and being accepted as proper citizens by their host country. Despite this fact, a good affiliation survived between many of the Natives and the Icelandic-Canadians, and overcame this wall of ethnic separation. This proves that people of different races can build a common ground of communication if they so wish.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".