Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTThe article uses the diplomatic efforts of John Brant and Robert Kerr to negotiate land claims with the Colonial Office in 1822 on behalf of the Grand River Six Nations, while presenting themselves (however problematically) as Mohawk indigenous modernizers, as a case study in the complicated interaction between colonialism and ideas of 'tradition' and 'modernity' in the early nineteenth century. Six Nations efforts to adapt to the colonial economy were frequently stymied by the colonial state's refusal to accommodate Mohawk demands, and in that sense modernity was a discursive trap for indigenous modernizers, not a real route to change. The failure of the diplomatic visit also illustrates the difficulties of negotiation in a changing colonial context in which indigenous peoples were increasingly seen as wards of the settler state rather than imperial military allies. Nonetheless, Grand River community members consistently tried to use both 'modernist' and 'traditionalist' strategies to defend indigenous sovereignty, whatever their internal disagreements over assimilation policies and economic options.Keywords: settler societycolonial stateHaldimand Grantindigenous sovereigntyfamily networkstradition and progressSix Nations
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".