MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7105591258 · doi:10.7202/1121422ar

Defining Membership Along the U.S.-Canadian Borderlands

2025· article· en· W7105591258 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOntario History · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)TreatyCONTESTLimitingResidenceDiplomacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOntario HistorySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207