MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089707727 · doi:10.7202/031002ar

The Blakeney Government and the Settlement of Treaty Indian Land Entitlements in Saskatchewan, 1975-1982

2006· article· en· W2089707727 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
James M. Pitsula

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Papers · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyNegotiationOpposition (politics)Settlement (finance)ObligationGovernment (linguistics)Peace treatyPolitical scienceLawHuman settlementContext (archaeology)Public administrationGeographyBusinessArchaeologyPoliticsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 1975 and 1982 a concerted effort was wade to fulfil treaty Indian land entitlements in Saskatchewan. The provincial NDP government led by the Hon. A.E. Blakeney proposed the “Saskatchewan formula” as the basis for a settlement. The process of settling entitlements was a complex one, but a close analysis of the federal-provincial negotiations suggests that most of the responsibility for the lack of progress belongs to the federal government. The flexible approach taken by the Saskatchewan government, who interpreted land entitlements in the context of the “spirit and intent” of the treaties, collided with the relatively inflexible approach of the federal Office of Native Claims, who were wedded to the concept of “lawful obligation.” When the problem was delayed in its solution, various groups had time to mount opposition to the proposed settlement. Consequently, a great opportunity was missed to achieve a major breakthrough and bring about an easing of tensions between Indians and non-Indians in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0350.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical PapersSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207