Divided We Stand: The Haudenosaunee, Their Passport and Legal Implications of Their Recognition in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are several indigenous nations divided by the international border between the U.S. and Canada (hereinafter, border tribes). Part II will provide historical background on the Haudenosaunee and the Haudenosaunee passport, as well as on the Jay Treaty's free passage right as recognition that the international border was not to affect border tribes. Part III of this comment will examine the trust-like duty both federal governments owe to indigenous populations in general, briefly describe benefits and services offered, and then discuss the legal effects of current legislation and regulations by the American and Canadian governments on Haudenosaunee tribal members living on the opposite side of the border from where they are recognized, and eligible for enrollment as an Indian. Turning to the international forum, Part IV will analyze the current regulatory systems as they function for the Haudenosaunee in light of international human rights documents, such as the Charter of the United Nations (U.N. Charter), the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This section will include an analysis of the provision for self-determination in the newly minted Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its connection to the validity of the Haudenosaunee's passport claims. Finally, Part V provides concluding recommendations for new, harmonized legislation by both federal governments, including the possibility of an international agreement to create and support the issuance of a Haudenosaunee passport.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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; 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".