Relations between Canada and First Nations in the West (1867- 1900): The Numbered Treaties, Indian Act, andLoss of Aboriginal Autonomy Year Level: HIST 3730 Citation Style: Chicago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and to assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion.”1 After Confederation in 1867, the Canadian federal government held the belief that First Nations groups were impediments to economic, political, and social development in the West. In order to overcome the “Indian Problem ” as once stated by Duncan Campbell Scott, the government negotiated a set of seven treaties called the Numbered Treaties withthe First Nations throughout the West between 1871 and 1877.Although no First Nations groups were particularly comfortable about ceding their traditional territories to the government, problems like mass starvation, epidemics, and new immigrants highly influenced their final decision. These treaties were unknowingly, the preliminary stages of assimilating the Aboriginal population into Euro-Canadian society and securing the frontier. In order to further assimilate these vulnerable First Nations groups to become fully participating members of Euro-Canadian society, the Indian Act was passed in 1876 by the Government of Canada. Although a certain degree of resistance was present throughout many treaty negotiations, the Numbered Treatieswere largely viewed by the First Nations as a fair compromise when faced with potential consequences such as possessing no land title and enduring starvation. Due to unfulfilled 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".