MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091566642 · doi:10.1080/2201473x.2014.1000909

Returning to the water to enact a treaty relationship: the Two Row Wampum Renewal Campaign

2015· article· en· W2091566642 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jessica Hallenbeck

Bibliographic record

VenueSettler Colonial Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousMetisEntitlement (fair division)ColonialismTreatyLawPoliticsSociologyMohawkMedia studiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Two Row Wampum is the first treaty between Europeans and Indigenous Nations on Anowarakowa Kawennote/Great Turtle Island/North America.11. Both Teioháte and Anowarakowa Kawennote are Mohawk words from Taiaiake Alfred, Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom (Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2005): 30. For other words from different Nations in the Confederacy, see http://honorthetworow.org/learn-More/history/ (accessed December 12, 2014). The 2013 Two Row Wampum Renewal Campaign culminated in a 14-day paddle on the Mahicantuck/Hudson River. This article draws on the author's experience as a participant and interviews conducted with full trip paddlers and organizers to argue that the enactment (re)inscribed the Two Row Wampum treaty relationship into the waters of the Mahicantuck/Hudson, the surrounding landscape, and enactment paddlers. The renewal campaign is one example of how water can form the basis of decolonial political practice, revealing colonial understandings of territory, law, and entitlement.22. Interviews were conducted under the terms of the University of British Columbia's ethics review process.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0260.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0030.009
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSettler Colonial StudiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207