Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article contributes to conversations about creative sovereignties by exploring what truly ‘nation-to-nation’ fiscal relationships might look like between Canada and Treaty 6 First Nations if Treaty 6 were taken seriously. Since fiscal relations between Indigenous peoples and settler colonial states often perpetuate colonial sovereignty, reimagining fiscal relations in a historical treaty context offers creative opportunities for decolonization. The article first examines the history of the 1876 Treaty 6 and the relationships Treaty 6 created. 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. Since 1876, including today, fiscal relations between Canada and First Nations have generally been inconsistent with the spirit and intent of treaty. The article proceeds to offer examples of changes that could be made to create fiscal relationships consistent with treaty. 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".