Anishinaabe Treaty-Making in the 18th-and-19th-Century Northern Great Lakes: From Shared Meanings to Epistemological Chasms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation looks at the evolution of Anishinaabe treaty-making process via the diplomatic language and implements used (wampum, calumet pipes, medals, clothing, texts, and paper). Anishinaabe people include the Ojibwe, Odaawaa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Algonquin, Nipissing and Saulteaux. Treaties amongst Indigenous people are explored as foundational precursors to treaties with colonial entities. Continuity in procedures, forms, discourse, metaphors and implements, are revealed. The Anishinaabe treaty process is an oral-based practice that combines material elements which are used as mnemonic devices while colonial treaty partners emphasize text-based procedures and materials, resulting in a tension between literacy and orality. The analysis adopts an Anishinaabe-centric perspective utilizing council proceedings, treaty councils, and petitions, privileging Anishinaabe voices through time. The analysis is also informed by explicating sources such as wampum belts and strings, medals, calumets, and Anishinaabemowin (Ojibwe language) to produce a more nuanced interpretation of Anishinaabe governance structures and their role in treaty procedures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".