Treaty No. 9 and the Question of “Unceded” Land South of the Albany River in Subarctic Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The James Bay Treaty-Treaty No. 9 was unique among the numbered treaties of Canada in that there was a need for the concurrence of the Province of Ontario. Last-minute negotiations by the Dominion of Canada to gain said concurrence led to an agreement with the Province of Ontario, and this agreement became part of the Treaty No. 9 package at Ontario’s insistence. However, since the agreement was not executed until after the Treaty No. 9 expedition had left for the field, an incomplete Treaty No. 9 package that lacked the agreement was presented to and signed by the First Nation groups in 1905. Furthermore, spaces had been left in the vellum copies of Treaty No. 9 and the agreement to add in the date of the agreement when fully executed. In the spaces that were left for this purpose, the date of the agreement was backdated to 3 July. This act of deception was suggested by the Treasurer of the Government of Ontario, A. Matheson in order to date of the agreement earlier than the date in the Treaty. Thus, the common law legality of the Treaty No. 9 package must be questioned, especially since officials of the Governments of Canada and Ontario left documentation of their deception. Without the agreement being attached as specified in the Treaty No. 9 document that left Ottawa in 1905, consideration of the terms of the agreement by the First Nation signatories of the treaty could not have occurred prior to signing. It follows that there exists a question of whether the land south of the Albany River was ever ceded in Treaty No. 9 from a common law perspective, unless documentation can be presented indicating that the complete Treaty No. 9 package was presented to the First Nation signatories; the written record indicates otherwise. In the end, the courts will have to decide the legality of Treaty No. 9 from a common law perspective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".