MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7017356708

“As Long As That Fire Burned”: \nIndigenous Warriors and Political \nOrder in Upper Canada, 1837–42

2021· article· en· W7017356708 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReactionaryPoliticsDiplomacyIndigenousState (computer science)Order (exchange)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the crises of rebellion and invasion during the years 1837–42, Indigenous warriors in Upper Canada took up arms on an extensive scale. This mobilization was not the result of reactionary loyalism. Rather, like other actors of the period, First Nations communities participated in the upheavals of the Rebellion in order to further their own vision of what constituted a desirable political order within the province. By 1837, First Nations communities in Upper Canada were beset with settler violence, theft, and squatting, and successive imperial administrators had shown themselves to be unwilling or unable to fulfill their obligations to protect Indigenous property or maintain crucial diplomatic practices. First Nations themselves, however, had a clear vision of the proper Indigenous-Imperial relationship, developed over generations of diplomacy and preserved in numerous treaties, belts, speeches, petitions, and councils. It was in support of this established framework that the warriors took up arms. With their military clout suddenly amplified by the insurrectionary crisis, Indigenous leaders across the province made clear that their assistance against the Patriot threat was contingent upon the maintenance of their recognized rights and privileges in the political order of post-Rebellion Canada. While these efforts initially produced significant results, the growth of the settler state in the period following the Rebellion soon led to the decisive dismantling of this long-standing Indigenous-Imperial framework. Résumé: En réaction aux crises engendrées par la rébellion et l'envahissement entre 1837 et 1842, les guerriers autochtones du Haut-Canada prirent les armes sur une grande échelle. Cette mobilisation ne résultait pas d'un loyalisme réactionnaire. Au contraire, comme d'autres acteurs de l'époque, les Premières Nations participèrent aux bouleversements de la Rébellion afin de faire avancer leur vision de ce qui constituait un ordre politique souhaitable dans la province. En 1837, les collectivités autochtones du Haut-Canada étaient victimes de violence, de vol et de squattage de la part de colons, et les administrateurs impériaux successifs s'étaient montrés réticents à remplir leurs obligations en matière de protection de la propriété autochtone ou de maintien des pratiques diplomatiques essentielles, voire incapables de le faire. Les Premières Nations elles-mêmes avaient cependant une vision nette des relations correctes entre les Autochtones et l'Empire, vision élaborée au cours de générations de diplomatie et préservée dans de nombreux traités, ceintures, discours, pétitions et conseils. C'est pour maintenir ce cadre établi que les guerriers prirent les armes. Leur poids militaire ayant été soudainement amplifié par la crise insurrectionnelle, les chefs autochtones de la province firent clairement savoir que leur aide contre la menace des Patriotes était subordonnée au maintien de leurs droits et privilèges reconnus dans l'ordre politique du Canada de l'après-Rébellion. Bien que ces efforts aient initialement donné des résultats notables, la croissance de l'État colonisateur après la Rébellion mena rapidement au démantèlement manifeste de ce cadre établi depuis longtemps entre les Autochtones et l'Empire.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0430.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→