Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay is about the role that the Canadian government has played in treaty-making with the Indigenous population since 1871. The scope of this paper is a closer examination of Treaties 4, 6, and 7 of the 11 numbered Treaties signed by various Indigenous groups and the Canadian government from 1871-1921. This essay uses an interesting combination of primary and secondary sources to best analyse the negotiations and outcomes of these treaties. Primary sources from authors like Alexander Morris and the Treaty 7 Elders help the reader grasp the argument of Indigenous people, while secondary interpretations from modern-day historians like St. Germain and Tobias explain how treaty debates may have been misinterpreted in the past. This paper investigates all of the hardships that Indigenous people have faced and scrutinizes the false promises the Canadian government has made because of Treaties 4, 6, and 7. Most of all, this essay is a call to action. The goal of this essay is to spread awareness of issues that Indigenous people have faced in the past so that Canadians might better understand their struggles. Many Canadians are still completely unaware of Indigenous issues like the ones discussed in this essay, which remain largely unresolved and affect Indigenous groups to this day.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".