Bibliographic record
Abstract
In June of 2013, the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, Kevin Washburn, began holding tribal consultations in an attempt to reform the Federal Acknowledgement Process (FAP) with the input of recognized and unrecognized indigenous peoples. Between June and September of 2013, unacknowledged Californian Indian groups, including the Amah Mustun Tribal Band of Ohlone/Costanoan Indians (Amah Mutsun), the Ohlone/Costanoan Esselen Nation (Esselen), and the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe (Muwekma), submitted separate letters in an attempt to voice their concerns and recommendations. This situation offers a useful case study for anthropologists attempting to study the role of ideology within the context of federal recognition. Using Phil Abrams theorization of the state as a historically determined and processual formation in conjunction with Louis Althusser’s discussion of ideology and Sherry Ortner’s conceptualization of agency, I discursively analyze each comment letter with special attention paid to discourses of history. With this approach, I make three interrelated arguments. First, the FAP is an inherently contradictory ideological project of the state that produces a paradoxical narrative of indigenous history. Second, the historical narratives within these letters reflect an incomplete and contested process of interpellation that seeks to reify state power through the reproduction of hegemonic ideas. Third, these historical discourses reflect the different political strategies of representation that unacknowledged peoples formulate to contest the process of interpellation as they navigate a paradoxical state ideology. Ultimately, these conclusions point towards the incomplete, dialectical, and contested nature of state ideology within the system of federal recognition.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".