Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the author challenges the exclusive use of common law legal principles for the interpretation of historic treaties between Aboriginal people and the Queen’s representatives. It suggests that particular attention to language, culture, relationships, and Anishinaabe normative values allows us to more fully grasp the true meaning and intent of treaties. Interspersed with personal narrative, the author grapples with the role of courts in identifying, interpreting, and ap- plying the terms of treaties. The author aims to provide a framework for retelling a more balanced account of the treaty negotiations, with particular attention to the normative values or Anishinaabe inaakonigewin (laws), which were central to the negotiations. Employing a triangulation between the written accounts of the negotiations, oral history, and Anishinaabe knowledge, norms, and customs, the author probes the complex ways in which Anishinaabe procedural and substantive norms shaped the terms contemplated by each of the parties, the fundamental conflicts be- tween normative values, and the substantive agreement to share the land. The re- telling of Treaty One from an Anishinaabe contextual perspective deepens our understandings of treaties and illustrates that the written text of the treaty provides an incomplete understanding of what was negotiated by the parties at the Stone Fort in 1871. Dans le present article, l’auteure remet en cause l’utilisation exclusive des principes juridiques de la common law dans l’interpretation des traites historiques entre les peuples autochtones et les representants de la Reine. Selon l’auteure, une attention particuliere a la langue, a la culture, aux relations et aux valeurs normatives anishinaabe nous permet de mieux comprendre la veritable signification et l'intention des traites. Tout en evoquant son histoire personnelle, l’auteure s’attaque au role des tribunaux dans l’identification, l’interpretation et l’application des clauses des traites. Elle tente de fournir un cadre pour relater les negociations de traites de maniere plus equilibree, tout en portant une attention particuliere aux valeurs normatives, ou anishinaabe inaakonigewin (lois), qui etaient au cœur de ces negociations. En triangulant les comptes rendus ecrits des negociations, l’histoire trans- mise oralement et les savoirs, normes et coutumes anishinaabe, l’auteure sonde la maniere complexe avec laquelle les regles procedurales et le droit substantif anishinaabe ont determine les clauses envisagees par chacune des parties, ainsi que les conflits fondamentaux entre les valeurs normatives et l’entente de fond visant a partager le territoire. Le fait de revoir le Traite 1 selon une perspective anishinaabe approfondit notre comprehension des traites et demontre que le texte ecrit du Traite est insuffisant pour bien comprendre ce qui a ete negocie par les parties a Fort Stone en 1871.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".