MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W582645226

Treaties Made in Good Faith

2011· article· en· W582645226 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sharon Venne

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian review of comparative literature · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyPresentation (obstetrics)FaithHistoryLawPolitical sciencePhilosophyMedicineTheology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction THIS PRESENTATION is ABOUT oral understanding of Treaty Six and treaty-making in 1876 at Fort Carlton and Fort Pitt, located in present-day Saskatchewan. There are no written notes for this talk, only my memory of those words spoken by Elders and Chiefs to express rich and vibrant life of our Peoples. I remember Elders stating that Treaty will last long as sun shines, waters flow, and grass grows. 1 The words the waters flow refer, not to a body of water like North Saskatchewan River, but to water that breaks when a woman gives birth. Because Treaty is supposed to last for as long as water flows when women give birth, these words tie Cree women like me to Treaty process. How that expression came about is an interesting story, but here I want to talk about oral understanding of treaty-making as I have learned it from my Elders.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian review of comparative literatureSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207