MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7034588763

"When We Were First Paid"\nThe Blackfoot Treaty, The Western Tribes, And\nThe Creation Of The Common Hunting Ground, 1855

2001· article· en· W7034588763 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAboriginal Affairs Northern Dev Canada
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsTreatyGovernorGeorge (robot)Government (linguistics)White (mutation)ReservationOrder (exchange)Foreign policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In mid-October of 1855, Blackfoot Treaty commissioner Isaac 1. Stevens, governor of Washington Territory and ex-officio its superintendent of Indian Affairs, and his co-commissioner Colonel Alfred Cumming, head of the Central Superintendency including Nebraska Territory, finally assembled the Blackfoot Peace Council just below the confluence of the Judith and Missouri Rivers. The federal government through the Office of Indian Affairs by then had already pieced together a new reservation policy for the West. This "new order of things," largely designed by Commissioner of Indian Affairs George Manypenny, hoped to reduce white conflicts with Indians, to prevent, if possible, expensive military actions, and above all to extinguish Indian land title by purchase, thereby enabling "legitimate" white settlement. In doing so, the new policy went well beyond the government's earlier and more limited goals of keeping immigrant trails free of hostile Indians and of creating a peaceful, federal dispensation or order on the Great Plains by means of annual compensation.1\nThe Blackfoot Council and the treaty that emerged from it, often termed Lame Bull's Treaty, however, did not fit the new reservation policy. It extinguished no aboriginal land title through land sales or cessions, nor did it provide for Indian removal to reservations where the government could establish schools, hospitals, and mills and provide farming instruction and moral guidance. Nor did the treaty advance the division of communal lands in order to allot small parcels to individual Indians. It was not a so-called land treaty at all; it was a peace treaty. And it contained a surprise-the federal creation of a common hunting ground. This designated area was to be shared "in peace" by the Blackfoot tribes and what were termed the "Western Indians," those who had come from west of the Rocky Mountains, across the continental divide, from the drainages of the Columbia River. These Western Indians were the Nez Perce, Yakima, Walla Walla, Cayuse, Kootenai, Spokane, and numerous Salish speakers, most prominently the Flathead and the Pend d'Oreille.\nThe formal establishment of such a common hunting ground in October of 1855 flew in the face of much of the emergent reservation policy. Instead of being encouraged to establish fixed and permanent homes, namely reservations, for exclusive tribal use, and to stay put, Stevens's federal recognition and formal establishment of a "buffalo commons" stimulated the bison hunters of the Columbia River drainages to continue their long, seasonal migrations to the contested buffalo plains centered at the headwaters of the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers just as they had always done.\nWhere did the Blackfoot Treaty commissioners find the precedent for such a common hunting ground and what lay behind their willingness to establish it on the buffalo plains? Could this divergent, if not contradictory, regional determination in the Far West be reconciled with the prevailing federal reservation policy as determined by the Office of Indian Affairs? Or was that unnecessary, given that American reservation policy in the 1850s was by its nature contradictory, little more than a series of regional improvisations?2\nCommissioners Stevens and Cumming, of course, did not actually "create" the common hunting ground. They simply acknowledged and restructured the reality of a preexisting Indian common hunting ground, a sort of buffalo commons, that gradually over the years had been constructed through war, treaties, and diplomacy on the part of the tribes themselves. Stevens had first encountered this dynamic tribal creation with its shifting boundaries and alliances when he led a congressionally funded transcontinental railroad survey through the middle of Blackfoot territory in 1853. Two years later, not only did treaty commissioners Stevens and Cumming recognize this Indian construction in the treaty provisions in 1855, they gave it an inordinate amount of attention. What were their goals and expectations regarding the federal definition, limitation, and reshaping of this preexisting regional Indian commons? How did these purposes relate to possible repercussions for a bison population, already perceived to be dwindling on the Northern Plains?

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsecta mundiSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207