MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107765097 · doi:10.1191/1474474002eu240oa

From savage space to governable space: the extension of United States judicial sovereignty over Indian Country in the nineteenth century

2002· article· en· W2107765097 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Olund

Bibliographic record

VenueCultural Geographies · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitySovereigntyLawCivilizationPoliticsPolitical scienceColonialismSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ways in which Native American communities as well as American society at large are constituted today are in no small part the legacies of the Indian reform era, a period of time spanning the 1880s and 1890s during which the assimilation of Native people and their spaces into the American polity became an explicit project of US governance. This civilizing mission, however, was a double moment in American history, for not only was it intended to reconstitute ‘Indians’ as American citizens through the force of law - it also enabled a certain claim to innocence on the part of American society. In this paper, I explore ways in which the cant of conquest was transformed into the ‘gift’ of civilization through the arguments of reformers, including their appropriations of Native testimony. ‘Indians’ started to become ‘Native Americans’, citizens equal before (US) law in an ostensibly liberal polity, yet this assertion of Native equality was made on the terms of white reformers which erased colonialism from American political discourse.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.029
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.008
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations29
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCultural GeographiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207