Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the mid 19th century the Métis, an Indigenous People in the northwest of North America, contested their exclusion from Canada's parliament. Settler colonial states have a legacy of excluding Indigenous voices. However, considering the case of Louis Riel's expulsion from parliament and reading the constitutional debates held in the northwest during the Red River resistance of 1869–70, this article illustrates the contested nature of the ‘perfect sovereignty’ of settler colonialism. The debates reveal a Métis understanding of parliamentary government that seems to draw on a confluence of Indigenous, British imperial, and American principles of constitutional thought. These debates, and the constitution of the province of Manitoba, suggest that by parsing federal, provincial, and criminal jurisdiction the Métis sought to ‘carve‐out’ a form of relative sovereignty. In an age when legal pluralism and Indigenous governance were waning, the Métis drew distinctions between criminal jurisdiction and self‐government to preserve their sovereignty. Challenging later conceptions of state exclusion that characterised politics in late 19th‐ and early 20th‐century Canada and the broader British empire, this analysis reveals what might be called a Métis parliament.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".