Power Struggle in the Old Northwest: Why the United States Won and the Indians Lost the Indian War, 1786-1795
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the American Revolution, an influx of white settlers into the Old Northwest threatened to upset the balance of power that had existed in the region for decades. Various Indian tribes, frontiersmen, the United States government, and the British in Canada all sought to exercise military, economic, and political control over the Old Northwest. Flawed connections within and between groups who lacked the ability or willingness to compromise, shaped the brutal nature of the war and posed an obstacle to peace negotiations. Over the course of the conflict, internal power struggles weakened the western Indian confederacy and their British "allies." Contrarily, the ability of the federal government to improve relations with the frontier militias paved the way for an American victory at the Battle of Fallen Timbers, ensuring U.S. control of the region. After the Treaty of Greeneville, the inability of Indians and Americans to overcome their differences hampered assimilation, resulting in further native resistance and their forced removal westward. Studying the Indian War in terms of power shifts and relationships offers a thorough picture of this seminal conflict, while identifying how factors such as race, culture, and politics affected the war and its aftermath.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".