Blackfoot legal traditions, treaty-making, and non-territorial forms of settler jurisdiction? Niitsitapi oral histories of Treaty 7
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I discuss Blackfoot oral histories of Treaty 7, an agreement the Blackfoot confederacy entered into with the Canadian government and two other Indigenous nations in September of 1877. Drawing from critical legal and legal geographic studies, I deploy jurisdiction as an analytical concept, exploring the ways jurisdiction can give concrete form to Indigenous understandings of treaty as a means of 'sharing' the land with settlers. I argue that, for the Blackfoot Confederacy members that participated in the making of Treaty 7, this agreement did not represent the surrender of land or extinguishment of Blackfoot legal traditions, but the continuation of Blackfoot jurisdiction across the confederacy's traditional territories. I also discuss Northwest Mounted Police (NWMP) Lieutenant-Colonel MacLeod's positive relationship with Blackfoot confederacy members. I contend this relationship with MacLeod and the NWMP contributed to a Blackfoot understanding of Canadian law as governing relations between people. Thus, through entering into Treaty 7 with Crown representatives, the Blackfoot Confederacy representatives were recognizing Canadian jurisdiction as a non-territorial form of authority governing the conduct of settlers, a form of recognition that is far different from agreeing to surrender land title and accepting Crown sovereignty.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".