Alaska Native Perspectives on the Alaska Constitution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We, as the indigenous people who occupied this space now called Alaska for over ten thousand years, were essentially in the twilight zone of the minds of those who created the Alaska Constitution.I have looked at some of the videos where the participants of the Alaska Constitutional Convention waxed on about their experiences participating in the convention.And it was, maybe in their lifetime, a wonderful and great experience.But that experience in no way reflected the entire Alaska population.I knew many of the participants, including John Cross, who represented Kotzebue, my home village.John was a wonderful pilot.But in no way could he have represented the Inuit people of that region when it came to our thinking and our views on those issues that were important to us.Many of us, even to this day, are just learning about our own histories, because it was basically the job of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to make sure we did not know who we were.We did not understand the ferocious impact of the first colonial period on the people of Alaska-the tremendous loss of life that took place, essentially the destruction of a people through disease, through starvation, and through enslavement.The Russians utilized our people, essentially as forced labor, to hunt the sea otter.In the subsequent battles over our lands leading up to ANSCA in 1971, 1 most of us had virtually no knowledge of the history of the Russian
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".