Hunting and the Quest for Power: The James Bay Cree and Whitemen in the 20th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"This chapter has been called 'Hunting and the Quest for Power' because it is about different quests for power and how they have interacted in the recent history of the James Bay region of northern Quebec. The key terms of this title are ambiguous; hunting means different things to the Cree than it does for other Canadians, and so, too, with power. The quest for power is a metaphor the Cree might use for the life of a hunter; it is also a metaphor Euro- Canadians might use for the goals of both northern developers and government bureaucracies. ... \n \n "When the Cree began their opposition to the James Bay hydroelectric scheme in 1972, they asked if I would present some of the results of my research to the courts and then use them in the negotiations. It was an unexpected happenstance that my study proved to be of some use to the Cree, and one for which I was thankful. I served as an adviser to the Cree organizations during the negotiation and implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, regularly from 1973 through 1978, and on an occasional basis thereafter. This took me into a new set of interests in the relationship of the Cree to the government and toward a deeper interest in Cree history. The results of some of these experiences are described in the latter parts of this chapter."
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".