MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995826836 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2004.9695614

Imposing the border: The Detroit River from 1786 to 1807

2004· article· en· W1995826836 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lisa Valentine, Allan K. McDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatySettlement (finance)PoliticsIndigenousState (computer science)PopulationPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)EconomyPolitical economyGeographyLawSociologyEconomicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1783, a border was imposed across the Old Northwest by the newly‐formed United States and Great Britain through the Treaty of Paris. That division down the center of the southern Great Lakes waterway was reconfirmed by the Jay Treaty of 1794. Despite these treaties, control of the borderland region remained in contention. This paper addresses the impact that the imposition of the border had on life in this region as a step on the way to understanding the impact of borders more generally. This historical case study focuses on aspects of social and political transformation in the contested borderlands of the Old Northwest, highlighting both the macrolevel strategy of states, which moved to conclude treaties with the indigenous population in order to control the territory and to deploy settlement, and the microlevel accommodations of settlers, traders, corporations and Native American communities. This paper traces the transformation of the Detroit hinterlands, the specific events around the imposition of the border, and the interdependence of community, commerce and the state. This brief historical overview illustrates immediate outcomes of the creation of a border and outlines some of its social, political, economic and legal consequences in the period.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.326 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207