Gray H. Whaley . Oregon and the Collapse of Illahee: U.S. Empire and the Transformation of an Indigenous World, 1792–1859 . (First Peoples: New Directions in Indigenous Studies.) Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 2010. Pp. xi, 303. Cloth $65.00, paper $24.95.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gray H. Whaley's book marks a new generation of Pacific Northwest scholarship that puts American imperialism at the center of the region's history. The book treats “Oregon” as a construction of American entrepreneurs, missionaries, farmers, and speculators, all of whom deployed folk republicanism, racism, and Protestantism to steal Illahee from the Native American owners of the land The book starts with the European discovery of the Columbia River in 1792, the Lewis and Clark Expedition, which wintered at its mouth in 1805–1806, and the establishment nearby of Fort Astoria in 1811. During this period it was the immigrants who adjusted to the customs and laws of Illahee, creating, for a few decades, a “middle ground” such as Richard White described for the Great Lakes: a place where both Natives and newcomers adapted and adopted some techniques, tools, and customs of the other. Whaley uses Illahee to draw our attention to aboriginal constructions of territory that competed with the American “Oregon.” Indeed, the word Illahee is drawn from Chinook jargon, an amalgam of Native and European languages that emerged as the language of the middle ground. Shared “laws” were negotiated in this space to determine retribution for affronts, injuries, and deaths that resulted in intermittent confrontations—and sometimes cruel violence—as well as more affectionate and intimate relationships.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".