Review of <i>Broken Treaties: United States and CanadianRelations with the Lakotas and the Plains Cree, 1868-1885</i> by Jill St. Germain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What appears to be another book exploring the broken treaty relationships of the United States and Canadian federal governments turns out to be nothing of the sort. In challenging the long-honored "broken treaties tradition," Jill St. Germain has written a groundbreaking and welcome revision of the history of treaty and reservation-making on both sides of the United States-Canadian border. Using a fresh, comparative approach to the analysis of federal records and the manuscript collections of federal Indian agents and officials, St. Germain focuses on the implementation of the Treaty of 1868 between the United States and the Lakota Sioux, and Treaty Six between Canada and the Plains Cree. Signed only eight years apart and emerging from the Plains West, both treaties stand as "exemplars of the broken treaties tradition." In the United States the broken treaties philosophy "proved a useful tool in the advancement of an Indian reform agenda" that emphasized policies made in Washington over bilateral treaty relations. This approach-in practice, in Congress, and in the subsequent historical record-accentuated the role of policymakers and Indian agents and de-emphasized tribal agency and treaty rights. "The underlying premise of the broken treaties tradition," St. Germain asserts, was "that such agreements were in effect meaningless given the unrepentant u.s. habit of breaking them." In Canada, an "inverted broken treaties" tradition evolved in which noncompliant tribal groups were viewed as aberrations and malcontents within a treaty system consistently upheld by the government.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".