Reconsidering Treaty 8 Negotiations: The Canadian Government’s Purposeful Exploitation of a Disadvantaged Population
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treaty 8 was signed on June 21, 1899, between the Government of Canada and Indigenous Peoples living in the northern Alberta, northeastern British Columbia, southwestern Northwest Territories, and northwestern Saskatchewan region. Calls for the treaty began in the 1870s, but negotiations only began one day before the treaty was signed, raising questions about the fairness and professionalism of the negotiation process.1 Issues involving the mistreatment of Indigenous Peoples, both historically and contemporarily, have been on the front pages of media increasingly since the discovery of unmarked graves at a Kamloops formerresidential school in 2021. Each case of the Canadian government’s mistreatment of Indigenous Peoples, or enabling of it, is different and needs to be examined individually with consideration of the different sources relevant to each event or case. This research sought to uncover if injustice or mistreatment of Indigenous groups occurred during the Treaty 8 negotiations, and if so, how. The research reveals that the government took advantage of the poor economic conditions affecting Indigenous Peoples in Northern Alberta and created Treaty 8 to unfairly benefit itself on the premise that Indigenous Peoples are less worthy of respect from the government. Negotiations were unfair and Indigenous Peoples were mocked and exploited, calling into question the ethics of Treaty 8 and the need to not only reconcile, but to completely re-examine Treaty 8 and other historical treaties and laws concerning Indigenous groups.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it