MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2238217312 · doi:10.29173/mruhr191

“They’d Lost Everything and Were Not Qualified”: The Legacy of the Unmet Education Promises Made in Treaty 7

2015· article· en· W2238217312 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tarisa Dawn Little

Bibliographic record

VenueMount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review (MRUHR) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyIndigenousGovernment (linguistics)Political sciencePublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides an analysis of the education promises made in Treaty 7 by the Crown and federal government of Canada. Signed on the banks of the Bow River at Blackfoot Crossing in 1877, the treaty was desired by both government officials and Indigenous Nations in what is now southern Alberta—the Tsuu T’ina, the Stoney Nakoda, and the Blackfoot Confederacy: Siksika, Piikani, Kainai. As this thesis will demonstrate though, Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples viewed the meaning of the treaty in conflicting ways. This paper focuses on the creation and management of the schools in the Treaty 7 territories from 1877, the year Treaty 7 was “signed”, to 1923, the year in which industrial and boarding schools were merged to form the new category of “residential school” and the decade in which government policy for schools for Indigenous peoples began to take a new, less ambitious direction. The implementation of schools by the Department of Indian Affairs and their church partners, the type of education that was being offered to First Nations peoples, as well as First Nations responses will be examined.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0130.021
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review (MRUHR)Same topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207