“A NEW FISCAL RELATIONSHIP:” A SETTLER BUREAUCRAT’S PERSPECTIVE ON FISCAL RELATIONS BETWEEN CANADA AND TREATY 6 FIRST NATIONS, THEIR HISTORY, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis addresses the research question: What might truly “nation-to-nation” fiscal relationships look like between Canada and Alberta Treaty 6 First Nations if Treaty 6 were taken seriously? The thesis goes about exploring this question by reviewing the history of Treaty 6, based on the assumption that understanding Treaty 6 in its historical context is critical to understanding how it should be applied today. It is established that Treaty 6 created nation-to-nation relationships that were based on the desire for mutually-beneficial relations in a shared space, and that treaty included fiscal obligations for Canada. The history of Treaty 6 fiscal relations is briefly examined from 1876 to 2015, and the conclusion drawn that fiscal relationships did not live up to the expectations of Treaty 6 over this period. With Chapter 3, the perspective switches to the contemporary, looking at the rhetoric and action taken by the 2015 Trudeau government, and concludes that despite rhetorical ambition, substantive changes are limited and those that have been implemented appear to be continuing the pattern of Canada failing to take Treaty 6 seriously. The final half of the thesis offers recommendations for how Treaty 6 fiscal relationships could be changed such that they would be consistent with treaty-based, nation-to-nation fiscal relationships. Some of these recommendations are relatively pragmatic and would come at little political, fiscal, or constitutional cost to Canada, while others are more dramatic, and would involve a fundamental reshaping of Canada as we know it.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".