Indian Day Schools in Michi Saagiig Anishinaabeg Territory, 1899-1978
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the history of Curve Lake Indian Day School between, 1899-1978 situated in the larger context of Indigenous education in Ontario during the first three quarters of the 20th century. Drawing on a collection of over 10,000 primary sources from the federal government, newspapers, and local archives the dissertation demonstrates how the federal government failed to recognize inherent treaty rights and fulfill its fiduciary duty towards education with Curve Lake First Nation. The federal government–through the administration of the Methodist and United Church–significantly underfunded the schools in comparison to the public system in Ontario and banned the use of Indigenous languages. This racially segregated system provided inadequate and poorly educated teachers, that caused significant issues among community members including abuse, loss of language, and dangerous health conditions. This pattern of mismanagement is still impacting their descendants today, especially with their health and revitalization of the traditional language: Anishinaabemowin. Using the method of “two-eyed seeing” this research was guided and informed by Curve Lake First Nation ensuring that all the historical data examined was easily accessible by the community through its elected Band Council under the leadership of Chief Emily Whetung.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".