MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904702964 · doi:10.31542/j.muse.220

Divisions in Treaty 6 Perspectives: the dilemma of written text and oral tradition

2016· article· en· W2904702964 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Miriam Lily Wing

Bibliographic record

VenueMacEwan University Student eJournal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsMacEwan UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyDilemmaOrder (exchange)Political scienceGovernment (linguistics)LawSociologyLaw and economicsEpistemologyPhilosophyLinguisticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the signing of Treaty 6 in 1876, there has been ongoing controversy between the First Nations and the Canadian government regarding the understanding and fulfillment of the treaty terms. Through investigating both historical texts and oral tradition, this article hopes to give insight on the modern dilemma of treaty rights in the specific case of Treaty 6. In order for the most accurate understanding of Treaty 6 to be obtained, First Nations oral tradition and perspectives must be considered as valid evidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacEwan University Student eJournalSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207