Mi’kmaw and Settler Understandings of the Peace and Friendship Treaties: Imagining a Decolonial Future for Treaty Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Settler Canadian and Mi’kmaw understandings of the Peace and Friendship Treaties have diverged since they were first signed. The historical context of the negotiation and treaty-making period demonstrates that Mi’kmaw and British motivations to establish a treaty relationship were each based within their respective worldviews. These perspectives continued to diverge in the twentieth century as the Mi'kmaq challenged criminalization and asserted their sovereignty within colonial courts. Settler entitlement, a lack of treaty knowledge, and a government unwilling to engage in their nation-to-nation treaty relationship contributed to the eruption of conflict in 2020 as Mi'kmaw fish harvesters exercised their treaty rights. Guided by Mi’kmaw communities and worldviews, we can reframe settler belonging in Indigenous territories, educate ourselves on Mi’kmaw treaty knowledge, begin to live by the spirit and intent of treaties, and decolonize our relationships. Two-Eyed Seeing highlights a path forward in our treaty relationship through the shared labour of decolonization.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".