Treaty through a Planting Lens: A Study of Manoomin Harvesting Rights in Anishinaabe-Aki, 1873–Present
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In 1873, the Crown and Anishinaabeg entered Treaty No. 3. This agreement would shape Canadian settlement in what is currently known as northwestern Ontario and southeastern Manitoba. For generations, Anishinaabeg have maintained that manoomin harvesting rights are protected by Treaty No. 3. Colonial officials, by contrast, have narrowly interpreted the archival record and associated references to "gardens" with vegetable cultivation for household use and "farming" with the large-scale cultivation of introduced crops like wheat, barley, and oats thus limiting the ability of First Nations to protect ancestral fields from provincial encroachment. In this article, Anishinaabe ecological knowledge around plant life cycles and needs (i.e., botanical gikendaasowin) is applied to the archival record, revealing how Anishinaabe leaders protected ancestral fields while negotiating access to introduced seeds to diversify food production. Federal activity in the immediate aftermath of 1873 further suggests that the Crown recognized the treaty right to harvest manoomin. Canada's historic attempts to curtail the manoomin harvest after 1876, as well as Ontario's attempts to manage ancestral fields after 1960, constitute violations of Treaty No. 3 when viewed through an Anishinaabe planting lens.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".