Indian Treaty-Making Policy in the United States and Canada, 1867-1877
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing comparative history is a challenging enterprise. Not only must one be cognizant of the topic and its many nuances for more than one historical tradition, but proper questions must be asked that tease out the distinctions and allow for a greater understanding of the subject. Jill St. Germain has attempted to compare the history of indigenous treaty making in Canada and the United States during a particularly important decade. By and large, she has succeeded in writing a worthwhile comparative history, although there are certain limitations. This brief monograph (165 pages of text broken into ten chapters) begins with placing treaty making in Canada and the United States during the mid-nineteenth century into its historical context. For the United States, the time frame is a mere four years, as Congress in 1871 decided to end treaty making between the federal government and Indian nations. In the immediate years preceding this particularly odd legislation, numerous treaties were negotiated, and a variety of blue-ribbon panels investigated treaty making. Meanwhile, in Canada, the first of the “numbered treaties” were completed in the Canadian West. It was a relatively new experience for the Canadian government, as Britain had previously conducted these negotiations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
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".