“Because our law is our law”: considering Anishinaabe citizenship orders through adoption narratives at Fort William First Nation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation demonstrates that inherent Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) citizenship law exists, and can be seen through adoption practices used by Anishinaabe families. For more than 165 years, Indigenous citizenship orders have been targeted by Canadian society through its laws, such as the Indian Act and its pre-cursor legislation. As I argue in this dissertation, however, inherent Anishinaabe citizenship law is based on the authority of Anishinaabe families to discern who belongs. By focusing on adoption narratives carried by thirteen knowledge holders from Fort William First Nation (an Anishinaabe community in Ontario, Canada), the dissertation shows that belonging according to inherent Anishinaabe citizenship law is not dependent on the Indian Act or its status logics. Rather, the knowledge holders demonstrate that, when seen through adoption stories, Anishinaabe citizenship is based on values of full inclusion, accountability to community, non-essentialism, and decentralized decision making. This dissertation contributes to literatures concerned with the resurgence of Indigenous citizenship orders, treaty constitutionalism, as well as biskaabiiyang and indigenist research methodologies.
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 | 0.019 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; 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".