"We should take each other by the hand": Conciliation and diplomacy in colonial Australia and North West Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter compares some examples of cross-cultural diplomatic exchange from nineteenth-century Canada and Australia and considers what they reveal about the formal establishment of colonial relationships. These two sites of British settlement are particularly worthy of comparison because, while they shared many similarities in ritualised diplomacy, they were underpinned by quite different terms of colonial rule. x The key difference was treaties: while the Canadian Dominion recognized Indigenous sovereignty to the degree that it negotiated treaties for the acquisition of territory, this process was not undertaken in Australia's colonies. The event held on 1 November 1838, mirrored the conciliating objective that had motivated Governor Macquarie twenty-four years earlier, and it shared many of the features of ceremonial diplomacy. In comparison, it might seem that Canada's First Nations held considerably more power in negotiating the land cession treaties that determined their relationship to the British Crown, but this would over-simplify the complexities and boundaries of indigenous agency in these colonial sites.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it