Was Amerindian Dispossession Lawful? The\nResponse of 19th-Century Maritime Intellectuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the half-century ending about the time of Confederation a dozen writers addressed awkward questions about an earlier generation's dispossession of Maritime Amerindians from land and resources: had it been lawful; if so, how; if not, what should be done? In the main they approached it as an abstract question, divorced from those particulars of local history that would become the focus of late-20th-century investigation. Those who theorized that English tradition made dispossession lawful did so with reference to the doctrine of "discovery" or to the proposition, grounded in Locke and accepted widely in colonial public opinion, thatAmerindian possession of any particular spot had been too casual to give rise to a property right. Those who argued the illegality of Amerindian dispossession, the most insistent of whom was S. T. Rand, pointed out that colonials themselves did not act consistently with the Lockean "agricultural" argument and that indicia of ancient aboriginal territorial possession were overwhelming. Maritime discussion of the issue seems to have ended in the 1860s, when jurisdiction over Amerindian affairs was transferred to the new federal administration at Ottawa.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".