MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165749309 · doi:10.1017/s0008423906060197

La revendication du titre “indien” par les Métis du Manitoba, 1860–1870

2006· article· fr· W2165749309 on OpenAlexaffabout
Darren O’Toole

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé.Après plus de deux décennies, un tribunal manitobain a fixé une date pour entendre l'affaireFMMqui touche à la concession des terres aux Métis selon l'art. 31 de laLoi de 1870 sur le Manitoba. Le politologue Thomas Flanagan répète inlassablement que les Métis ne se sontjamaisdécrits comme peuple aborigène ayant des droits fonciers spéciaux pendant la résistance de 1869–70. Puisqu'il est fort probable que la Couronne se serve encore une fois de la recherche de Flanagan dans l'affaireFMM, le moment est opportun pour réexaminer les arguments de Flanagan. Dans ce but, l'auteur examine ici de plus près certaines des prétentions de Flanagan, notamment celles qui veulent que : 1) les Métis n'aientjamaisrevendiqué le statut de peuple autochtone ou des droits autochtones pendant les événements de 1869–70; 2) les listes de droits ne contiennent aucune référence aux droits aborigènes des Métis; et 3) l'abbé Ritchot i) n'ait eu aucun mandat de négocier l'extinction du titre aborigène des Métis et une concession de terres; ii) n'ait été qu'un délégué parmi trois. Abstract.After more than two decades, a Manitoban court has set a date to hear of theMMFcase which touches on the Métis land grant in s. 31 of theManitoba Act, 1870. Political scientist Thomas Flanagan has continually repeated that the Métisneverdescribed themselves as an Aboriginal people with special land rights during the resistance of 1869–70. As it is quite probable that the Crown will use Flanagan's research in theMMFcase, it is timely to reexamine it. To this end, the author takes a closer look at some of Flanagan's conclusions, most notably those that claim that: 1) the Métisneverclaimed status as an Aboriginal people during the events of 1869–70; 2) the various Bills of Rights contain no reference to the aboriginal rights of the Métis; 3) the abbot Ritchot : i) had no mandate to negotiate the extinction of Métis aboriginal rights and a land grant; ii) was but one of three delegates.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207