Sovereignty on the Northern Plains: Indian, European, American and Canadian Claims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Colonization of North America by Europeans raised fundamental issues about the status and rights of the original inhabitants of this continent. Were the Indian and Inuit peoples sovereign nations, with territorial rights equivalent to those of the European sovereigns in the so-called Old World? Did they have rights to the soil on a par with those of landowners in Britain, France, or Spain? If they were sovereign nations with territorial or land rights, what impact did European colonization have on them? Even today, these questions have not been completely resolved. In Canada, for example, as recently as 1997 the Supreme Court left open the question of whether the Indian and Inuit peoples have an inherent right of self-government that survived European colonization. At the same time, the Court decided that those peoples do have a right of exclusive use and occupation of their traditional lands, if they can prove they were in exclusive occupation of them at the time of assertion of European sovereignty. This means that the question of when sovereignty was acquired can have profound contemporary significance for the Indian and Inuit peoples of Canada. In the United States, these issues were addressed by the Supreme Court in the 1820s and 1830s. However, the discussion in this article will show that these early decisions are often misinterpreted or ignored in the context of acquisition of European sovereignty. All too often, it is assumed that the European nations were able to acquire sovereignty over the territories of the Indian and Inuit nations without their consent, and without actually taking possession and establishing effective control. This article will challenge this assumption, and reassess the manner and time of acquisition of European sovereignty in North America, by focusing on the geographical region of the Northern Plains. Copyright Journal of the West ©2000, reprinted with permission of ABC-CLIO.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".