MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470837879

Coalescence and Conflict in Iroquoian Ontario

2010· article· en· W2470837879 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Birch

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeological review from Cambridge · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryState (computer science)EthnologyGenealogyArchaeological recordArchaeologyAncient historyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

arly European explorers and missionaries described the Native warrior of northeastern North America as a “blood-thirsty, war-mongering savage” (Axtell 1981: 160) accustomed to “the most atrocious carnage and the most barbarous spectacles” (Thwaites 1896–1901, 43: 263). While this view typically disregards the violent history of Europeans themselves, it is true that at the time of contact in the seventeenth century AD all Northern Iroquoian nations seem to have been in a state of prolonged conflict with either other Iroquoian groups, neighbouring Algonquian tribes or both (Trigger 1976: 153). The social and demographic crises created by European pathogens, the economic motivations of the fur trade and the introduction of firearms had, by this time, altered and escalated traditional patterns of conflict. Precontact warfare is less often referred to because the historical record paints a much clearer picture than archaeological evidence

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)0.003
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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0200.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeological review from CambridgeSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207