The Common Intention of the Parties and the Payment of Annuities Under the Numbered Treaties: Who Assumed the Risk of Inflation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines a key term in the so-called Numbered Treaties between the Crown and the Indians of the northwest: the provisions for “annuities” or annual payments in perpetuity by the Crown to the Indian signatories. The author observes that the Crown, in the performance of this obligation, has adhered consistently to the monetary law principle known as nominalism, thus asserting that the common intention of the parties to these treaties was for the First Nations signatories to assume the entire risk of any future loss in value or purchasing power attached to the nominal sums provided. It is argued, however, that the stability of the annuity in terms of purchasing power (with a consequent placement of the risk of any decline in the buying power of the dollar on the Crown) must, if not found explicitly within the terms of the treaties as the expressed intent of the parties, be implied as a reflection of their unexpressed intent. Any interpretation that entails the risk of inflation being assumed by the First Nations signatories must therefore be based entirely on factors other than the common intention of the parties to the Numbered Treaties.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".