MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6979810274

Alexander Morris and the Saulteaux : the context and making of treaty three, 1869-73 / by Brian Walmark.

2017· other· en· W6979810274 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyNegotiationCabinet (room)Government (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Position (finance)Arms control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary purpose of this thesis is to explore and analyze the circumstances
\nsurrounding the Treaty Three agreement between the Canadian government and the
\nAnishinabe in 1873. The agreement is important for a number of reasons. The Anishinabe
\nwon significant concessions from Canada that, not only led to the renegotiation of Treaties
\nOne and Two, but set the standard for the rest of the numbered treaties across Western
\nCanada as well. It is helpful to remember that while most of the other numbered treaties
\nwere signed in a matter of weeks, Treaty Three was over four years in the making. The
\nAnishinabe realized the value of their land and insisted on key demands from the Dominion
\ngovernment. They remained committed to their basic position from 1869 when they first
\nissued a copy of their demands to the Canadian government until 1873 when they finally
\nsigned Treaty Three. These demands went far beyond what Indian agents were commissioned
\nby the Canadian cabinet to agree to. The Anishinabe realized this and held up the talks until
\nthey could negotiate with a representative of the Queen, who they believed had the authority
\nto deal with their demands. In 1873, they received such an individual in Alexander Morris,
\nthe Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba and the North-West Territories. The Anishinabe could
\nnot have realized at the time that Morris? instructions were as narrow as the other
\nrepresentatives who had earlier attempted to negotiate a treaty with them.
\nIt is not surprising that Morris has received much of the credit for negotiating Treaty
\nThree which had eluded the Canadian government since the Riel Resistance. However, a
\ncareful examination of the available evidence suggests that the agreement was made possible
\nby the work of Simon Dawson and his associates Richard Pither and Nicholas Chatelain on
\none hand and James McKay and other Metis leaders of the Red River community who accompanied Morris to Lake of the Woods in 1873. This paper argues that it was a
\ncombination of these two factors, the rank that Morris enjoyed in the eyes of the Anishinabe
\nand the role played Dawson, McKay and the rest of the Canadian negotiating team that led to
\nthe successful agreement in 1873.
\nIn the 1870?s, Canadian officials referred to the Anishinabe as the Saulteaux. There is
\nno evidence available that suggests that they ever called themselves by this term.
\nNevertheless, all of the primary and many of the secondary sources use the word Saulteaux,
\nso, for sake of consistency and in order to avoid confusion, I have decided to use it
\nthroughout this paper.

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University)Same topicDiverse Scientific and Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207