Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are Crown-Indigenous treaties instruments of dispossession? Or are they best hope for a just political order in Canada? This question has divided Indigenous and anticolonial advocates and scholars. To adequately respond to it, we need a clearer account of what treaties are. Rather than seeing treaties as Indigenous practices of kin-making, nation-to-nation agreements, or real estate contracts, we need to recognize that the treaty system is a complex, multilayered institution that includes each of these elements. The treaty system combines Indigenous, Imperial, and Settler governance traditions. So understood, the treaty system is a fundamental, intersocietal institution of governance in Canada. It provides the overarching framework through which Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples contest the terms of their territorial co-existence. It follows that treaties are neither instruments of consent nor dispossession; instead, they are sites of contestation and struggle. This dissertation traces the emergence, consolidation, and development of the treaty system from the early modern period to the present. It focuses on the emergence of the treaty system in the mid-eighteenth century, and its transformation into a system of treaty colonialism in nineteenth century Upper Canada. Throughout, I emphasize the simultaneous operation of three treaty traditions: Indigenous relational, Imperial diplomatic, and Settler contractual. These traditions constrained political agents, but they also provided resources that could be mobilized by diversely situated Indigenous and colonial actors, often in surprising ways. The dissertation concludes by endorsing a multi-pronged strategy of treaty renewal, one that simultaneously emphasizes Indigenous relational visions of treaty while strategically deploying the contractual and diplomatic traditions to combat dispossession. In this way, it contributes to debates about the role of treaties in reconciliation and decolonization. It also intervenes in disciplinary debates by insisting that Indigenous institutions, such as treaties, belong at the center of the emerging field of Canadian Political Development
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".