Australie et Canada, entre rejet et réintégration des peuples indigènes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the process of assimilation of Indigenous Canadian and Australian populations from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 21st century. This study revolves around the following question : How did the forced displacement of Indigenous Australians and Canadians, as well as the establishment of racial boundaries through the creation of reserves and residential schools, fit into a global colonial policy ?Through racial policies intended to isolate the Other from the predominantly white population, the Australian and Canadian governments gradually established ethnic segregation with the goal of complete rejection of the Indigenous populations. The indigenous populations of these two Commonwealth countries were subjected to racism and considered dangerous by government authorities, who used Victorian-era rhetoric and pseudoscientific resources. In Australia and Canada, these two populations were segregated simultaneously due to fear of miscegenation. Through the implementation of various assimilation campaigns, the establishment of residential schools and educational institutions designated for indigenous communities, as well as the phenomena of the "Stolen Generation" and the "Sixties Scoop", this comparative study explores the mechanisms used in this ethnic and racial separation. Furthermore, the effects of these policies on these communities reveal socioeconomic répercussions and the presence of intergenerational trauma that both still exist today. In this analysis, I also discuss the influence of British Victorian values that were introduced to these two countries during the British Empire’s colonization process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".