MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7026579166

“And by Publishing, to Preserve:” Envisioning Indigenous Futures in Anishinaabe Historical Writing, 1814–1893

2023· dissertation· en· W7026579166 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaYale University
KeywordsIndigenousVisionColonialismPoliticsGulagIntellectual historySovereigntyPolitical consciousnessDystopia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation bridges intellectual history, biography, and ethnohistory to reveal how nineteenth-century Anishinaabeg used historical writing to historicize their past, speak to their colonial present, and offer future visions of a transformed colonial society. Historical writing was a key site of colonial struggle in which settler histories attempted to eliminate the Indigenous past and replace it with their own conception of the ‘Indian.’ Between 1814-1893, a remarkable body of Anishinaabe historical writing in English was produced by at least ten different writers, all of whom worked from the stories and knowledge of elders, family members, and knowledge keepers. Through a focus on the lives and writings of Jane Johnston Schoolcraft (Bamewawagezhikaquay), George Copway (Kahgegagahbowh), and Francis Assiginack, this dissertation analyzes expressions of Anishinaabe historical consciousness and the settler-colonial myths and ideas they engaged with. Their writings contended that elements of Anishinaabe ways of living and knowing were not only valid, but invaluable and had to be preserved in the face of permanent loss. In addition to producing immediate political and social change in Canada and the United States, these writers also sought to shape the development of future society. While their future visions called for Indigenous adoption of Euro-Canadian and Euro-American technology and religion, they also presented Anishinaabe knowledge as a gift that could potentially facilitate spiritual and moral renewal in settler society. Historical writing was a foundational aspect of this ‘envisioning process.’ By asserting an Anishinaabe understanding of history through this trans-cultural approach, these writers were able to challenge the historical and theological foundations of settler colonialism, argue for the value and historicity of Indigenous peoples, and posit visions of a settler colonial future that would transform both Indigenous and settler society.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan)Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207