Defining Membership Along the U.S.-Canadian Borderlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a case study set within the Sault Ste. Marie-Baawating region, this paper seeks to address the development and implementation of residency requirements to maintain treaty rights in British Canada. Following the conclusion of the War of 1812, British Canada began imposing both unofficial and official decisions relating to receiving gifts, annuities, land rights, and various forms of government assistance. Beginning by limiting gifts to British resident Indians between 1840–1858, the practice evolved into a legislated section of the Indian Act from 1876 to 1951 that removed individuals from Band lists for residing in a foreign country for five consecutive years. Garden River First Nation, a Band within the Baawating region, lost members prior to 1876 based on U.S. residency and acceptance of American annuities, lands, or government assistance. From 1876 to 1951 the Band and its membership continued to be negatively affected by the residency rule. Regardless, the Band continued to contest removals and seek reinstatement of members through calls to treaty rights and understandings of the five-year rule—residency on the reserve or their non-consecutive residence in the U.S. As such, this article explores an understudied aspect of enfranchisement policies within the Indian Act, from their development to formal implementation, Anishinaabeg contestation of these policies, and briefly addresses the ongoing contemporaneous existence of these policies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".