MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997897112 · doi:10.1353/aq.2014.0079

“The Bomb Was like the Indians”: Trickster Mimetics and Native Sovereignty in Martin Cruz Smith’s The Indians Won

2014· article· en· W1997897112 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara L. Spurgeon

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Quarterly · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLatin American and Latino Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTricksterSovereigntyNationalismIronyResistance (ecology)ColonialismNative americanCitizenshipEthnologyHistorySociologyAnthropologyPolitical scienceArtLiteratureLawPoliticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Martin Cruz Smith ( Gorky Park , 1981) is rarely acknowledged as a native American author concerned with the global implications of colonialism, race, and native sovereignty. His virtually unknown first novel, however, The Indians Won (1970), imagines an alternative America in which an Indian Nation established in the 1870s stretches from Canada to Mexico. The novel explores how nation building occurs and what a native nation peopled by modern native citizens might look like. It maps colonization and forms of native resistance, factual and imagined, through a process of trickster mimesis—subversive and deliberate self-reflexivity that anticipates the playful irony of Gerald Vizenor’s trickster hermeneutics, in which native peoples continuously engage in cultural play as a means of resistance, reinvention, and affirmation of presence over absence. The Indians Won transforms Western notions of nationhood, citizenship, and sovereignty into a distinctively native form of nationalism.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.041
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican QuarterlySame topicLatin American and Latino StudiesFrench-language works237,207