First Nation retained sovereignty: an inherent right to participate in and regulate gaming economies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First Nations in Canada and tribes in the United States share similar histories from pre-contact to present day. Indigenous peoples met newcomers from overseas and established relationships of trade and military alliance. This relationship changed over time, owing to many factors, not limited to shifts in demographics as a result of waves of immigration, war and disease. The emerging settler societies of Canada and the United States have maintained similar, but differing, relationships with the Indigenous nations on the respective sides of the present day border. The differences emerge as result of the manner in which the settler colonies severed their relationship with the British Empire. In the United States, independence occurred in 1776 during a time when tribal nations were relied upon for military strength and when tribal political autonomy was self-evident. Not surprisingly, the newly formed union did not purport to exercise dominion over the tribes. Rather, the United States recognized tribal sovereignty. Since then, relying on notions of racial superiority, both the United States and Canada have wrested fundamental tenets of democracy to conclude that unilateral dominion is not only legal, but morally correct. This thesis seeks to support the position that tribal and First Nation sovereignty has not been extinguished and First Nations continue to possess inherent rights of self-government and sovereignty.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".