Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-determination for Indigenous peoples in settler-colonial countries like Canada is an ongoing process where Indigenous peoples simultaneously focus externally to create expanded jurisdictional space while also re-establishing their own governing processes. Canadian economic progress has come at a cost to Indigenous peoples, undermining their collective rights to economic security and self-determination. In this article, I explore Cree peoplehood as a way to conceive Cree nationhood as distinct from conceptions of the nation-State. I rely significantly on archival sources to explore how the Cree were, and were also seen as, a self-determining people. After exploring the internal aspects of Cree peoplehood, I then examine the external relations of the Cree: focusing on inter-nation trade, trade networks, transportation, and a trade language as nations engage in trade and diplomacy, as one method to exercise their authority and jurisdiction. The final section investigates the diplomatic relations of the Plains Cree. This article is adding to the peoplehood literature by not only applying this concept to domestic relations but also examining foreign relations. It also adds to the writing on Cree self-determination by exploring how historic relationships and practices can inform current self-determination aspirations. This type of research can substantiate and provide historical analyses of Indigenous nationhood to further understand the context behind current economic and political self-determination movements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".