Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much has been written about the North American trade dealing in beaver and otter pelts. The drive to acquire valuable hides drove the early colonial economy and served as one of the industries which pushed Americans to expand their national reach beyond the Rocky Mountains, the British, Scots, and Russians to move southward from Canada and Alaska, and the Spanish to assert their claim to the North. Admittedly, the Spanish were latecomers to the fur trade and often lacked the population and practical experience to pursue trapping as a nationalized industry, however, the portion of North America they laid claim to boasted far greater riches in fine furs than in the mineral resources typically sought after by Spanish. One region often dismissed by historians as being rich in fine furs is Texas, excluded from fur trade studies due to a perceived inhospitable climate for the animals, language barriers, and limited documentation. Nevertheless, evidence from Mexican inspectors and American travelers making their accounts of life in Texas, particularly between 1821 and 1836, show that the fur trade was a vibrant and as much of a dynamic industry in this frontier region as it was throughout any other part of the Southwest. This paper will provide an opening perspective to the fur trade in Texas as a part of the larger Southwestern history, seating Mexican Texas into the same regional context as the rest of the Southwest to contextualize this part of the fur trade as an international industry and illustrate the nuances that occurred particularly in the Texas trade. The region proves impossible to limit its context to either “wilderness” or “settled;” moreover, the trade that took place was not limited to American Mountain Men, but was seen as a lucrative endeavor by most immigrants. Texas’ fur trade was a combination of the old American Factory System, the realm of the more widely considered “Free Trappers,” a method for African American slaves to acquire the funds necessary to purchase their own freedom and dispossessed Native Americans to thrive in their new home.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".