Lisa Blee. Framing Chief Leschi: Narratives and the Politics of Historical Justice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Puget Sound in the 1850s was a violent and confused backwater. Warriors engaged volunteer soldiers in skirmishes while settlers lynched native people. In the midst of this, Governor Isaac Stevens negotiated treaties that deprived the indigenous residents of core lands, and a group of aggrieved Indians attacked the brand-new settlement of Seattle. In 1857, Leschi, a leader of the Nisqually nation of southern Puget Sound, was convicted of murdering a soldier, A. B. Moses, and hanged in Washington Territory's first execution. The execution of Leschi has festered in the minds of Nisqually people over the years, leading eventually to the creation of a Committee to Exonerate Chief Leschi. The committee sought ways to rectify the name of a figure central to their history and, in December of 2004 a quasi-legal, entirely symbolic, “Historical Court” was convened. The panel included volunteer judges from state courts and the Lummi Tribal Court. The local prosecutors office participated in proceedings conducted as a conventional adversarial common-law court. Expert witnesses included scholars, Native American leaders and historians, and army lawyers. Representatives of the Nisqually presented their views. The quasi-court, avoiding evidentiary questions about who killed the soldier, found that “‘a state of war existed between the federal Territory of Washington and several Indian tribes, including the Nisqually Indian tribe… . [Moses's] death occurred in this war, and therefore Chief Leschi should not, as a matter of law, have been tried for the crime of murder’” (pp. 9–10).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".