MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986990951 · doi:10.2307/3125215

American Encounters: Natives and Newcomers from European Contact to Indian Removal, 1500-1850

2001· article· en· W1986990951 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Early Republic · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceSociologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

American Encounters: Natives and Newcomers from European Contact to Indian Removal 1500-1850. Edited by Peter C. Mancall and James H. Merrell. (New York: Routledge, 2000. Pp. xiv, 594. Illustrations. $90.00.) Instructors in seminars or other advanced courses in Indian history, to say nothing of specialists in other fields suddenly faced with the need to become experts on ethnohistory, will find their coursepack conveniently done for them in this collection of twenty-five classic articles. scope actually goes beyond European contact, since Neil Salisbury's essay, The Indians' Old World, brilliantly describes the many oscillations in material culture, economic practice, and socio-political structure that Indians had initiated or undergone before contact with Europeans occurred. James Axtell's effort-in a much-reprinted article on what colonial history might have been like without Indians (Colonial America Without the Indians: Counterfactual Reflections, Journal of American History, 63 [March 1987], 981-86)-to encourage the inclusion of ethnohistory in mainstream media appears to have succeeded. present volume, unlike others, leaves that article out in favor of Axtell's striking analysis of the successful methods of Indian assimilation of white adoptees into their societies. Yet most of the articles in this volume come from mainstream publications: the Journal of American History, Journal of Women's History, Canadian Historical Review, Southern California Quarterly, and, above all, from the publication nearest Axtell's home university, the William and Mary Quarterly. Indian-oriented publications such as Ethnohistory, the American Indian Quarterly, and the American Indian Cultural and Research Journal are respectably but less fully represented. Chapters from books (including a festschrift for Oscar Handlin) come about equally from those devoted to ethnohistory and more general collections. In the colonial era, at least, historians of the American Indian appear to be swimming with the tide in the main stream. articles tend to focus on geographical areas currently inside the United States and British colonies, although other areas are represented as well. One contribution deals with Spanish Florida and two with Spanish California; Cornelis J. Jaenens addresses French Canadian themes, Helen Hornbeck Tanner discusses the multiethnic Ohio country, and Raymond Hansen and Daniel H. Usner examine areas of French influence. Nearly all emphasize native experience more fully than European policy or the adventures of white frontierspeople, and most follow Usner's lead in defining frontier in terms of intercultural exchange rather than linear boundaries. Richard White's masterful analysis of Lakota imperialism constitutes his direct contribution to the collection. Yet his notion of the middle ground where exchange involves relatively egalitarian trade, labor, and marital relations in a context where each group tries-not always successfully-to employ practices congenial to the other, informs several essays (The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815[1991]). Perhaps the most amusing example of this genre is Timothy J. Shannon's Dressing for Success on the Mohawk Frontier: Hendrik, Sir William Johnson, and Indian Fashion. Both Usner, writing of the lower Mississippi Valley, and Tanner, writing of the Ohio country's Glaize in 1792, stress the varieties of nationality and ethnicity involved in intercultural exchange. …

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.263 · 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