Bibliographic record
Abstract
<italic>Claiming Turtle Mountain’s Constitution</italic> examines the formation and adoption of the first constitution of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians through the eyes of the tribal members who voted to adopt it. Focusing on the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, this work of legal and social history describes the seminal moment in which the people of Turtle Mountain chose their constitution as a means to accomplish a much larger political goal: beginning a lawsuit against the federal government. By decentering the federal government, the federal actors of the time, and federal legislation such as the Indian Reorganization Act, <italic>Claiming Turtle Mountain’s Constitution</italic> reorients the tribal citizens who made this important decision at the heart of their own governance and legal, political, and social history. The Plains Ojibwe and Métis who merged together – within the vise of settler colonialism – to become the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians were distressed at the federal government’s disruption of their leadership structure, their treaty, and their reservation and for decades sought a lawsuit against the federal government to rectify these wrongs. The tribal nation adopted a constitution in 1932 that many recognized as deficient and limiting in the hopes that it would lead toward a lawsuit. Tribal citizens have lived with the consequences of this difficult choice ever since. <italic>Claiming Turtle Mountain’s Constitution</italic> argues that understanding the origins of tribal constitutions from the tribal nation’s perspective is crucial to understanding both historical and contemporary tribal governance and American constitutionalism more broadly.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".