Student: Jesse Thistle #211861747 Treaty Six: A Portrait of Cree Agency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discipline of history can often misrepresent events, tell half-truths, or create myths that perpetuate false accounts. Unfortunately, if these deficient chronicles are retold enough times by enough credible historians they become the mainstream orthodox history. The field of Canadian Aboriginal history, in particular, has suffered greatly from this popular yet misleading kind of historiographical regurgitation, and the signing of Treaty Six at Fort Carlton, Saskatchewan in 1876 is one such example. The standard Canadian myth regarding Treaty Six holds that the Plains Cree were facing cultural annihilation in the face of aggressive colonial expansion and because of this they had to sign Treaty Six with the Canadian state or perish by starvation. 1 Although there is some truth to this assertion as the buffalo herds, the main source of Cree food and livelihood, had greatly diminished and settlers were arriving in ever greater numbers, it does not tell the whole story. 2 Specifically, by painting Cree people as passive non-actors who settled for government treaty terms, the myth misrepresents the Canadian government as farsighted and altruistic while simultaneously robbing Cree people of their agency. 3 This lopsided historiographical interpretation is simply not true, as the Cree nation, led by Chiefs Mistawasis and Ahtahkakoop, did possess and employ agency while signing Treaty Six. Their exertion of agency can be seen most clearly in three ways. First, the transference of Rupert’s Land from the Hudson’s Bay Company to the Dominion of Canada incited political resistance in the North-1
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.103 | 0.018 |
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".