Intersections of Historical Consciousness: The Meeting of Indigenous and Settler Histories in Canada’s Storied Places
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, Indigenous peoples and settlers have a long, shared past, but do not have a shared sense of history. This dissertation examines historical consciousness of each of these groups relating to two distinct historical intersections: the national capital of Ottawa, ON, and the Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site in Louisbourg, NS. In each place, Indigenous and settler histories meet, with varying results. In section one, settler history is presented through the work of Dominion Archivist Arthur Doughty in the early twentieth century; we see how the Archives became the “power centre” of Canadian history, crafting and promoting a specific version of history. The history of the sacred Algonquin territory of Asinabka, also in Ottawa, counters this Euro-centric version of history in multiple ways. In section two, the foundations of the Fortress and Louisbourg National Historic Site is explored through an examination of early-twentieth-century commemoration attempts. These events demonstrate a shift to promoting the ruined site as a place that could celebrate ancestors of both French and English Canadians, therefore helping to unite a young country. Fast-forwarding to the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, this English and French foundation at the Fortress is challenged by attempts to include local Indigenous history and culture into the existing framework. To these intersections, the dissertation applies theoretical lenses such as Homi Bhabha’s liminal space, ambivalence, and mimicry, Glen Sean Coulthard’s politics of recognition. Together these lenses and these case studies question whether a united history is desirable or necessary, or whether a post-modern acceptance of multiple narratives is the future for 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.070 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".