MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W245767484

Indigenous Rural Renewal in the Inland Pacific Northwest: The Emergence of American Indian Tribes in Regional Economic Development

2014· article· en· W245767484 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dick G. Winchell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and community development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainable Development and Environmental Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousEconomic growthPovertyGovernment (linguistics)Indian countryInvestment (military)Development economicsSophisticationPolitical scienceFrontierGeographyEconomyEconomicsPoliticsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The marginalization of Indigenous Peoples in the Inland Pacific Northwest destroyed successful salmon-based tribal economies, while failed federal policies for sustainable economic development on reservations and lack of tribal autonomy led to poverty for American Indians. Federal policies eventually recognized tribal self-government, but it took the legalization of tribal gaming to produce significant economic change. Extremely successful tribal gaming operations produced a rapidly expanding sophistication for tribal investment and a new tribal economy. By 2000 median American Indian /Alaskan Native incomes were higher than non-Indians in most rural counties, and American Indian tribal governments were the largest employers with the most discretionary revenues for investment in many rural counties. A new rural that incorporates tribal governmental and business success has emerged with dramatic new Indigenous rural futures. Keywords: American Indian; Native American; economic growth; Indigenous economies; resilient communities

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

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 studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rural and community developmentSame topicSustainable Development and Environmental PolicyFrench-language works237,207