MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2136202711

Land and Language: The Struggle for National, Territorial, and Linguistic Integrity of the Oneida People

2012· article· en· W2136202711 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John H. Johnsen, Bartosz Hlebowicz, Harry Schüler

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsGeographyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to maintain a living community is a functional requirement for the natural transmission of culture and language. The Oneida Indians, aboriginal people of what is now the State of New York, have struggled for more than two centuries to sustain their community and culture. The Oneidas have experienced and aggressive programme of expropriation, the division of the community, and the exile of the majority of their people to Canada and the State of Wisconsin. Only within the past few decades have the Oneidas begun to achieve some success in rebuilding their economic base and in reclaiming some of their native lands, but in the meantime their language has been almost entirely lost. They have attempted to use recent legal victories to rebuild their land base, their community, and their basis for cultural and linguistic transmission, but continue to confront a hostile and intimidating social and legal orientation on the part of the larger community, as well as divisive conflict among themselves. An examination of the case of the Oneidas illuminates the continuing impact of the European expansion into the Americans and of policies and practices that have been inimical to the retention of native cultures and languages.

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)0.001
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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.386 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→