Building the Treaty #3 Nibi Declaration Using an Anishinaabe Methodology of Ceremony, Language and Engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ratified in 2019, the Nibi Declaration of Treaty #3 voices the relationship with water (Nibi) and jurisdictional responsibility that all Anishinaabe citizens have within the Treaty #3 territory. It affirms the responsibilities and relationships that others living within the territory should have with the water and ensures that the spirit of Nibi is central to decision-making and water governance. This article details the process of developing The Declaration, in accordance with the Treaty #3 lawmaking process and, which was driven by women, in ceremony, with the help of Gitiizii m-inaanik, and with the input of The Nation as a whole. This process embodies nationhood, sovereignty, and Anishinaabe jurisdiction as it relates to the environment and water, in accordance with the Manito Aki Inakonigaawin (Mother Earth law). Every person has a relationship with water. The process of nurturing that relationship through the teachings exemplified in the implementation of The Declaration will provide clarity on the responsibilities and partnerships that must be developed to protect the water for future generations.
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 | 0.033 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".