MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1991093579 · doi:10.3138/utq.82.4.924

How Allotment-Era Literature Can Inform Current Controversies about Tribal Jurisdiction and Reservation Diminishment

2013· article· en· W1991093579 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ann E. Tweedy

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoutheast Asian Sociopolitical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReservationAllotmentJurisdictionCurrent (fluid)Political scienceLaw and economicsPsychologyEconomicsLawEngineeringMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a previous piece, ‘Unjustifiable Expectations: Laying to Rest the Ghosts of Allotment-Era Settlers,’ the author argued that a review of historical newspaper articles showed that the expectations of non-Indians who purchased lands on Sioux reservations in South Dakota during the allotment era above tribes disappearing were not justifiable because they were rooted in an expectation of continued injustice towards tribes. The article thus concluded that the Supreme Court should not presume that allotment-era settlers had justifiable expectations when it decided reservation diminishment and tribal jurisdiction cases. This article addresses whether allotment era literature pertaining to Sioux peoples can similarly help inform such cases. Although the results are more mixed, particularly with non-Indian-authored fiction, the works of Native writers such as Luther Standing Bear, Charles Eastman, and particularly Zitkala-Ša are helpful in explicating the injustices in the federal government’s land dealings with tribes, as was a nonfiction work by non-Native historian and poet Doane Robinson.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.041
Scholarly communication0.0090.016
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly→Same topicSoutheast Asian Sociopolitical Studies→French-language works237,207→