Small 't' treaty Relationships Without Borders: Bear River First Nation, Clam Harvesters, the Bay of Fundy Marine Resource Centre and the World Forum of Fisher Peoples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tully, Asch and Borrows assert that while treaties are subject to colonialism, certain political worldviews in treaty making become a starting point for processes of reconciliation and the fulfillment of treaty obligations between settler Canadians and Indigenous peoples. Underlying this proposition are principles of mutual recognition and sharing of the land and resources. In this article, I borrow James Tully’s concept of small ‘t’ treaty relations to demonstrate how informal relations between L’sitkuk, clam and other fish harvesters around the world have the potential for regenerating these principles of mutuality as opposed to current formal treaty negotiations that are subjected to what I argue and refer to as political/knowledge ethos. Resume: Selon Tully, Asch et Borrows, bien que les traites soient assujettis au colonialisme, certaines visions politiques dans l’elaboration des traites peuvent etre un point de depart pour les processus de reconciliation et le respect des accords entre les colonisateurs canadiens et les peuples Autochtones – notamment des principes de reconnaissance mutuelle et de partage des ressources de la terre. Dans cet article, j’emprunte le concept de James Tully de relations de traites avec un petit ‘t’ pour demontrer comment les relations informelles entre L’sitkuk, pecheurs de palourdes et autres pecheurs autour du monde ont le potentiel de regenerer ces principes de mutualite, qui contrastent avec les negociations formelles courantes de traites, soumises pour leur part a un ethos de la politique du savoir.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".