MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Incorporation and Colonization: Postcolumbian Iroquois Satellite Communities and Processes of Indigenous Autonomy

2013· article· en· W2004602175 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kurt A. Jordan

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Anthropologist · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomelandIndigenousOpposition (politics)AutonomyColonizationEthnologyColonialismGeographyPolitical scienceHistorySociologyArchaeologyEcologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Recent anthropological work demonstrates rising concern for understanding group‐level autonomy, particularly the maintenance of opposition to expanding states and economic systems. Archaeologists are well poised to contribute to this effort, especially when aided by renewed attention to Eric Wolf's concept of process. Wolf's concept can be applied to indigenous‐driven, broad‐scale processes of intercommunity connection to help understand the generation and maintenance of autonomy in the face of colonial encroachment. Archaeologically informed reexamination of the relationships between the principal Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) homeland towns and satellite communities during 1600–1775 provides a case study. In many parts of the Iroquois homeland, large towns were surrounded by nearby small satellite villages; Iroquois people also founded communities distant from the homeland, moving into what is now Ontario, Quebec, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Both nearby and distant Iroquois satellites manifested incorporation of outside groups and colonization of new territories—Native‐led processes that helped maintain Iroquois autonomy.

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)0.001
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican AnthropologistSame topicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207