James Mackay and David Stirrup, eds. Tribal Fantasies: Native Americans in the European Imaginary, 1900-2010.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is not a work of Indigenous history.Rather, it an important collection of essays about the recent history of European ideas about -and cultural practices purporting to relate to-the Indigenous peoples of North America.Anyone who works on cultural appropriation, the imaginary Indian, or the symbolic relationship between Indigenous peoples and globalization will find much to work with here. 2Although they are not presented in this order, there are some obvious clusters among the essays.Four of the contributions focus on European nationhoods, ethnic identities, and social formations as refracted through ideas about Native Americans.Literary scholar Jessica Dougherty-McMichael provides a close reading of a fascinating primary source: Rotha Mór an tSaoil by Micí Mac Gabhann, an Irishman who traveled the American and Canadian wests, encountering Blackfeet and Tagish men and women and creating a narrative that wrestles with Mac Gabhann's status as both colonized and colonizer, while also combining elements of American captivity narratives and Irish fairy abduction stories.If being Irish could be worked out through stories about Indians, Marek Paryz shows how the same was true for postwar Poland, where adventure novels set in the American West, with their valiant but doomed Indians, spoke to Polish experiences of failed uprisings against German and Soviet imperialisms.Peter Thompson, meanwhile, illustrates the ways in which the German philosopher Ernst Bloch drew on the fictional, American West-set tales of Karl May in order to
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".