MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069834549 · doi:10.2307/4486447

Living with Strangers: The Nineteenth-Century Sioux and the Canadian-American Borderlands

2006· article· en· W2069834549 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richmond L. Clow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American History · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNinthNarrativeHistoryConventionPoliticsNew englandAmerican westSubject (documents)GeographyEthnologyArchaeologyAncient historyGenealogyLawPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

David G. McCrady tackles the subject of Sioux use and control of the northern borderlands, which he defines as the territory of southern Canada and the northern United States stretching from the Great Lakes to the Rocky Mountains and divided by the forty-ninth parallel. The story begins in 1752 when France and England attempted to control tribes and lands west of the Great Lakes. The narrative shifts following the 1763 Peace of Paris and the Convention of 1818, which divided between America and Canada the northern lands that lie along the forty-ninth parallel from Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains. Most of the narrative focuses on tribal responses to nineteenth-century Canadian and American expansion onto the northern prairies between the lake country and the western mountains. This was Sioux territory (the author defines Sioux as a political entity encompassing Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota communities). At this point the story becomes richer. It describes this paper border as ineffective, failing to deter tribal peoples from freely moving back and forth without fear. The border failed because of an absence of nineteenth-century Canadian-American northern borderland patrols. Neither nation forced their “Canadian or United States” tribesmen to stay on their respective side of the line.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0810.026
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American HistorySame topicArchaeology and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207