Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous oral histories say that Treaty No. 6 (1876) was not only a legal transaction but rather a ceremony of adoption whereby incoming settler peoples became relatives. With Indigenous theories of relationality now informing many disciplines, how do white settler peoples take up the framework of kinship without using it only as a metaphor—and thereby as yet another tool of settler-colonial displacement? This essay examines this risk by considering the figurative use of kinship terms by Commissioner Alexander Morris at the negotiations for Treaty No. 6, in what is now Saskatchewan, Canada.Morris’s reliance on a borrowed vocabulary of kinship was, like his participation in the ceremony of the sacred pipestem, an invocation of relationality as a rhetorical device aimed at securing the ‘surrender’ of the lands. While metaphor is a figure that can mislead, coerce, or yoke, however, it can also make relationships, make things akin. In light of the continued relevance of the Indigenous legal framework known as treaty, this discussion takes up the possibility of kinship metaphors as not only figurative but also as literal, binding, and central to the possibility of good relations in the prairies today.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".