Chief Paskwa’s Pictograph: Revisiting Treaty Four Through an Anishinaabe Philosophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research provides an understanding of Treaty Four 1874 through an Anishinaabe philosophy using Anishinaabe(Ojibway) research methods. Prior research conducted has been done by primarily non-Anishinaabeg, therefore, this research will add literature regarding Chief Paskwa’s pictograph from an Anishinaabe voice while following traditional protocols. Including Anishinaabe voice when revisiting history is crucial, especially when the history is deeply connected to who you as a human-being in todays society. The research conducted and the knowledge shared will benefit the community of Pasqua First Nation and other Treaty Four bands. It can be used as a teaching tool to introduce Treaty Four 1874 from Anishinaabe (Indigenous People) philosophy. Utilizing Anishinaabeg methodologies and research methods will ground this research back to its roots Completing this research will empower future generations to look deeper into the Treaty Agreements to advocate and exercise their Treaty Rights as Anishinaabeg.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".