Sharing the land: the formation of the Vancouver Island (or 'Douglas') Treaties of 1850-1854 in historical, legal and comparative context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chapter I introduces the Vancouver Island or ‘Douglas’ Treaties of 1850-54, entered into between several Vancouver Island First Nations and Hudson’s Bay Company Chief Factor, James Douglas, acting as agent of the Crown. The written versions purported to extinguish the aboriginal title of the First Nations to their land. Recent research has indicated that these documents do not accurately reflect what was agreed between the parties at the treaty meetings. The goal of the dissertation is to ascertain the likely terms of the treaties. This task also posed my major research challenge, as very little contemporaneous documentation exists of the formation of the treaties. There are a number of first- and second-hand accounts reduced to writing long after the events described, but they have received little attention from scholars until now. Chapter II is devoted to a critical analysis and comparison of the extant First Nation and colonial accounts, from which I conclude that the treaties were likely agreements by the First Nations to share not cede their land. Chapter III makes a comparison with first person accounts of the Washington or ‘Stevens’ Treaties of 1854-55, entered into between \nvii \nviii Native American tribes and the United States government. I conclude that these accounts \nbolster the likelihood that the Vancouver Island agreements were sharing treaties. Chapter IV follows up on a fascinating connection between the written versions of the Vancouver Island Treaties and an agreement concerning land between the Ngai Tahu Moari of New Zealand’s south island and Henry Kemp, acting as agent of the Crown. The comparison provides a number of useful contrasts and parallels with the Vancouver Island Treaties. Chapter V describes the silencing of the Vancouver Island Treaties by the policies of successive governments, the inattention of scholars and the decisions of Canadian courts. Finally, Chapter VI reviews existing and potential categories of historical treaties between First Nations and the Crown. By analogy with treaty categories in international law and the work of political and legal theorists, I make the case for the Vancouver Island Treaties as examples of modus vivendi (interim or framework agreements).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".