MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132974814

Honouring the Jay Treaty: Cross-Border Tuition Policies at Vancouver Island University and the University of Saskatchewan

2024· dissertation· W7132974814 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael O'Shea

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2024
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousTreatyContext (archaeology)SovereigntyIndigenous rightsColonialismIndigenous educationState (computer science)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aware of my position as a Settler researcher, I explore the question, “How can universities act on their responsibilities to Indigenous students under the Jay Treaty?” The Jay Treaty of 1794 recognized the pre-existing right of Indigenous peoples to cross the border between the United States and British North America (later Canada). Over the last 230 years, Indigenous communities have used the Jay Treaty to advocate for their rights to cross the border — a colonial division across Indigenous homelands. In 2023 Canada still does not recognize the Jay Treaty, while the United States does, though with blood quantum restrictions. In the absence of Canadian federal action, a growing number of Canadian universities have acknowledged the Treaty and waived the international tuition fee differential for Indigenous students crossing the border. Within a polishing the chain framework, a Haudenosaunee legal concept that describes a renewal of lapsed treaty relationship, I carried out interviews, surveying, and document analysis to understand how the Indigenous and Settler administrators at both universities relate to the policy, to Treaty, and to each other. Among my findings are that the policies were passed quickly through university administration once introduced, but only after decades of advocacy from both Indigenous students and staff. Settler respondents saw the passage of the policy as imperative, especially in the recent context of reconciliation in Canada. Policies differed among institutions, particularly around student eligibility and documentation requirements. All respondents noted the symbolic importance of the policies in recognizing Indigenous sovereignty across borders, but certain aspects of the policy reveal that the Treaty relationship has yet to be fully polished by universities. Institutions may have the power to set tuition rates, but they cannot adjust immigration status. At some research sites, few students have accessed the policy’s benefits, and eligibility criteria may be more restricted than the original Jay Treaty language. Finally, financial aid is only one factor in student success and should be matched with other supports, such as sufficient on-campus student services. In summary, universities, often hostile to Indigenous students, may have begun polishing the chain, but much polishing remains.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0450.014
Scholarly communication0.0140.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→