Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is an important contribution to the study of the relationship between the Dene and Canada.Dr. Irlbacher-Fox is non-Indigenous, and she has spent most of her life living and working in Denendeh among the Dene, Métis, and Inuvialuit peoples.She has listened to us using both her mind and her heart, which shows in the passion and conviction she conveys in her research and writing.I welcome her contribution to bringing to light aspects of both the strengths and the struggles of the Dene.In 1973, the Dene won a long-fought victory in the Paulette decision, a court decision that shattered the myth that Dene had surrendered their lands and extinguished their Aboriginal rights.In that court case, Fort Smith Chief François Paulette led the Dene to assert their place as stewards of Denendeh in the face of major development.Dene were then, as they are now, a majority of the residents in the Northwest Territories.The Paulette decision clearly stated that Treaties 8 and 11 that Dene had entered into with the Crown were not ones of extinguishment.Dene already knew that their ancestors had not given up the land and that the treaties described terms of peace and friendship.Treaty 8, which extends into the northern parts of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, was entered into not only by us but also by our Indigenous neighbours.Therefore, Canada must recognize that all numbered treaties are ones of peace and friendship and then address the articles of the treaties accordingly.Despite the Paulette decision, Canada still maintains that it owns Dene lands, where generations of Dene far into the future will continue to live.Being Dene is to live as part of the land.Dene conceive of "land" not in the capitalist sense as a patch of ground legally surveyed, registered, and paid for.For Dene, the land is not property, which is the way Canada would prefer Dene to see it.The concept of land for Dene is understood as what non-
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.653 | 0.555 |
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".