Indian in textbooks : a content analysis of history books authorized for use in Ontario schools / by Patricia V. Ofner. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CHAPTER 1 Has the dominant group in Canada really presented a true and accurate picture of the Canadian Indian, or have our authors been guilty of prejudice and discrimination in their treatment of the natives?Many authors openly acknowledge the problem: The existence of open prejudice against Native people in Canada is well known and well documented, (Stymeist, 1975:6) Dallyn and Earle draw the conclusion: The findings indicate that there is still a strong response to stereotypes about Indians; that they are dirty, lazy, unreliable, without skills, and so on.(Dallyn and Earle, 1957:25) Faherty writes: Misconceptions that have become deeply enrooted are difficult to eradicate.Perhaps most devastating is the image of the Indian as savage, an image that has influenced the view of white society toward the Indian since the earliest days of contact.Either a nomadic, hostile brute impeding the civilizing process of advancing settlers or a noble, unspoiled child of nature symbolizing freedom for Rousseau and others, the Indian was stereotyped as uncivilized, and mentally, culturally, and religiously inferior to the white.(Faherty, 1974:163) James S. Frideres writes; While it may never be possible to quantify the degree of racism (both individual and institutional) , the evidence examined unmistakably reveals the same central theme.Its blatancy may have been disguised, but the impact has still been the same.People still believe that natives are biologically and socially inferior and as a result, discrimination against Indians at both the individual and institutional level still has
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".