“United States shall so legislate and act as to secure the permanent prosperity and happiness of said Indians”: Policy Implications of the Apache Nation’s 1852 Treaty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As binding contracts among sovereigns, treaties between Indigenous and Western Nations set parameters for and guide policies that recognize Indigenous Peoples’ rights and that harmonize those rights with non-Indigenous interests. Because treaties engage specific terms, parties, and geographies, detailed analyses of treaty texts and historical contexts are required foundations for understanding Treaty Rights and for proposing policy reforms. The litigious “Save Oak Flat” battle over the Resolution Copper mine proposed for Apache Nation Treaty Territory in present day Arizona prompts close scrutiny of the 1852 Treaty between the United States and the Apache Nation. Because the 1852 Treaty guarantees rights to both parties, it provides mandates and suggests co-management mechanisms to safeguard Apache Nation Treaty Territory and Apache rights to religious practice free from threats of sacred site destruction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| 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".