Who invented the mule deer (<i>Odocoileus hemionus</i>)? On the authorship of the fraudulent 1812 journal of Charles Le Raye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The captivity journal of Charles Le Raye was first published in 1812 as a chapter in A topographical description of the state of Ohio, Indiana Territory, and Louisiana, a volume authored anonymously by “a late officer in the U. S. Army”. Le Raye was purported to be a French Canadian fur trader who, as a captive of the Sioux, had travelled across broad portions of the Missouri and Yellowstone river drainages a few years before the Lewis and Clark expedition (1804–1806), and his account of the land, its people, and its natural resources was relied upon as a primary source by generations of natural historians, geographers, and ethnographers. Based directly on descriptions of animals in the published journal, the naturalist Constantine S. Rafinesque named seven new species of North American mammals, including what are currently recognized as the mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and a Great Plains subspecies of white-tailed deer (O. virginianus macrourus). Unfortunately, Le Raye never existed, and historical, geographical, and ethnographical evidence indicates that the journal is fraudulent. Determining the author of this work is relevant to identifying the sources used to construct it, which may help us to understand the real animals upon which Rafinesque's species are based. Traditionally, authorship of the volume was attributed to Jervis Cutler, but his role in composing the fraudulent Le Raye journal has been called into question. In this paper, I present additional evidence supporting the hypothesis that Jervis Cutler bears primary responsibility for the Le Raye journal and that he had the background, opportunity, and potential motive to author it.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".