Indian Treaties in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book examines the treaties that promised self-government, financial assistance, cultural protections, and land to the more than 565 tribes of North America (including Alaska, Hawaii, and Canada). Prior to contact with Europeans and, later, Americans, American Indian treaties assumed unique dimensions, often involving lengthy ceremonial meetings during which gifts were exchanged. Europeans and Americans would irrevocably alter the ways in which treaties were negotiated: for example, treaties no longer constituted oral agreements but rather written documents, though both parties generally lacked understanding of the other's culture. The political consequences of treaty negotiations continue to define the legal status of the more than 565 federally recognized tribes today. These and other aspects of treaty-making will be explored in this single-volume work, which serves to fill a gap in the study of both American history and Native American history. The history of treaty making covers a wide historical swath dating from the earliest treaty in 1788 to latest one negotiated in 1917. Despite the end of formal treaties largely by the end of the 19th century, Native relations with the federal government continued on with the move to reservations and later formal land allotment under the Dawes Act of 1887.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".