Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1822, the newly created Borough Council of Prairie du Chien passed a law against “white persons … skulking or sneaking about after 10 oclock at night.” This remarkable ordinance, passed by the leaders of the Creole fur-trade community, is the most unique but not the only expression of resistance to a new political order imposed by the United States on a region that had both a strong Native American presence and a long allegiance to the French and British Canadian provinces. It marked the first phase of a series of Creole political adaptations that allowed them to express local values, thwart racialization, and express consensus before factionalism and demographic change altered their options within the democratic system. The new régime brought major changes in government to Prairie du Chien at the local, territorial, and national level, changes that would affect the habitants personally, economically, and politically. It would alter their social relationships, shift local power dynamics, challenge their worldviews, and provide avenues for expression in unexpected ways. During the 1820s and ’30s, the ethnically and racially mixed residents of this old fur-trade town experimented with Yankee-style democracy and courts, mixed them with American Indian political practices and fur-trade traditions, and came up with surprising results. In some ways, we may see their actions as critiques of colonization and assertions of alternative concepts of governance; and in others, we can observe the processes of assimilation and acculturation. In addition, their participation in the political and judicial system may help to explain why they did not develop an identity as indigenous Métis people like their Canadian cousins. But it is a complex story.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".