MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565611380 · doi:10.3968/8955

Study of the Land of American Indian in the Exploitation of the West

2016· article· en· W2565611380 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jing Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Ethnic Minorities and Relations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite (mutation)ContradictionSovereigntyPretextPopulationAmerican westDevelopment economicsGeographyAgriculturePolitical scienceEthnologyPolitical economyEconomyHistorySociologyLawPoliticsDemographyArchaeologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid rise of the United States benefits from the western exploitation; and the first question that comes from the development of western regions, is the ownership of the land. American Indians are originally of the earliest residents of this stretch of land, but they have never formed the system of occupying and developing the land and confirming their sovereignty effectively, which gives the White man with advanced culture the pretext to attack and occupy. Because of the sharply increased population and immigrants, the White society endures stronger pressure on the land resources; therefore, immigrating into the west becomes one of the most effective way to lighten the pressure. Consequently, the land problem is very crucial for the existence and development of White society. Because of the enormous difference of the cultural system, the way of utilizing lands of India is obviously different from that of the White society. They engage in extensive agriculture or make a living by hunting. This kind of life style has an outstanding characteristic—it needs a very large region. This means that the contradiction on the land, is a kind of harsh struggle for existence between American Indians and White men. It has indicated that the White society is determined to capture American Indian’s land.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicChina's Ethnic Minorities and RelationsFrench-language works237,207