Bibliographic record
Abstract
In September 1877, the Canadian government and the Indigenous peoples of the southern portion of Alberta met at Blackfoot Crossing to negotiate the agreement known as Treaty 7. Contemporary descriptions of this meeting are of great historical, legal and socio-political significance. The recent publication of the journal of Father Léon Doucet, a Missionary Oblate of Mary Immaculate who laboured in Alberta between 1868 and 1939, has brought to light the missionary’s little-known account of the Treaty 7 talks. Doucet’s version of events differs from both oral histories and eye-witness statements in one important way: it recognizes Oblate Father Constantine Scollen as the chief interpreter at the negotiations. This paper will compare Doucet’s version to both oral and written accounts and will suggest that Doucet’s description of the Treaty 7 negotiations was influenced by his history with Father Scollen. Moreover, in 1908, Doucet began editing his notes and compiling them into a journal which was to be exhibited in a museum commemorating the Oblates. Doucet’s exaggeration of Scollen’s interpreter role at the Treaty 7 talks, as well as the numerous examples in the journal of the relationships fostered by the Oblates’ desire to learn Indigenous languages, suggest that, in Doucet’s mind, language was central to the Oblates’ mission to western Canada.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".