MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2439621723 · doi:10.2307/3659937

[no title]

2003· article· en· W2439621723 on OpenAlexaff
Leland Donald, John Fahey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American History · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTribeReservationGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceHistoryLawGenealogySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tangled, complex history of the relationship between the United States government and Native American peoples in the twentieth century is still understudied and often misunderstood. Any publication that increases our grasp of any significant aspect of that history is welcome. John Fahey's account of the career of the Coeur d'Alene leader Joe Garry, who was an important figure in the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) in the 1950s and 1960s, provides us with useful information and insights about the activities of the NCAI, perhaps the most important national-level Indian organization during those decades, and about the local level struggle between Garry's community and the government, which led him onto the national scene. The key issue that energized the NCAI, brought it to some prominence, and increased the number of tribes actively involved in the organization's activities was termination, the proposed ending of the reservation system and the division of a tribe's assets among its individual members. To the bureaucrats and politicians pushing termination, it meant ending the Indian' status as “wards of the government” and putting them on a footing similar to that of other Americans. To the Indian and other opponents of termination, it meant the end of the Indian way of life as they knew it and the breaking of promises and undertakings contained in numerous treaties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American HistorySame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207