MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7055510476

“Compound Dispossession” in Southern\nOntario: Converging Trajectories of Colonial\nDispossession and Inter-Indigenous Conflict,\n1886–1900

2023· article· en· W7055510476 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyIndigenousAgency (philosophy)TreatyNarrativeSovereign state
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout the 1880s and 1890s, two First Nations groups—the Chippewa of the Thames and the Six Nations of the Grand River—attempted to evict two other First Nations groups—the Munsee of the Thames and the Mississauga of the Credit—from the Thames and Grand River reserves in southern Ontario. These land disputes were successfully resolved by the turn of the twentieth century and no evictions did take place, but the 20 years of conflict are revealing of the complexities, contingencies, and evolutions of dispossession in Canada over the nineteenth century. This article presents a narrative of these attempted evictions and proposes the concept of “compound dispossession” as a means of grappling with these complexities. It is argued that compound dispossession not only captures the snowballing complications of historical dispossessions over time, but also captures the imbrication of multiple disparate trajectories of dispossession as the pressures of settler land hunger and encroachments on Indigenous sovereignty in the late nineteenth century bore down on four neighbouring First Nations groups simultaneously. Rather than interpreting these conflicts through a binary of assimilation/resistance, compound dispossession suggests the pervasiveness of dispossession as a discourse and the agency of dispossession as an adaptation to the unfolding settler-colonial paradigm. Résumé: Tout au long des années 1880 et 1890, deux groupes de Premières nations–les Chippewa de la Thames et les Six Nations de la rivière Grand–ont tenté d’expulser deux autres groupes de Premières nations des réserves de la Thames et de la rivière Grand, dans le sud de l’Ontario : les Munsee de la Thames et les Mississauga de la Credit. Ces conflits territoriaux ont été résolus avec succès au début du xxe siècle sans aucune éviction, mais les vingt années de conflit sont révélatrices de la complexité, de l’évolution et des impondérables de la dépossession au Canada au cours du xixe siècle. Cet article présente un récit de ces tentatives d’expulsion et propose le concept de « double dépossession » comme moyen d’appréhender cette complexité. D’après l’auteur, ce concept ne fait pas que traduire l’effet boule de neige des dépossessions du passé; il comprend également l’imbrication de multiples trajectoires disparates de dépossession, au moment où les pressions exercées par l’appétit des colons pour la terre et les empiétements sur la souveraineté autochtone à la fin du xixe siècle se sont abattus simultanément sur quatre groupes de Premières nations voisins. Plutôt que d’interpréter ces conflits à l’aide du schéma binaire assimilation/résistance, la double dépossession montre l’omniprésence de la dépossession en tant que discours et l’agentivité de la dépossession comme moyen d’adaptation au déploiement du paradigme de la colonisation de peuplement.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)Same topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207