Rethinking the “Indian War”: Northern Indians and Intra-Native Politics in the Western Canada-U.S. Borderlands
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The standard interpretation of Washington Territory’s “Indian War” of the mid-1850s is not only east-west in its orientation, it also leaves little room for Indian auxiliaries, let alone mercenaries-for-hire from the north Pacific coast. “Northern Indians” from what later became northwestern British Columbia and southeastern Alaska provided crucial productive, reproductive, and military labor for early Euro-American settlers. Because Coast Salish communities on both sides of the border had experienced decades of raids and conflicts with various groups of northern Indians by the 1850s, Euro-Americans’ hiring of northern Indians in particular illustrates the importance of intra-Indian geopolitics to subsequent events. When placed in this larger context, the “Indian War” of 1855–56 in western Washington must be seen as part of a longer continuum of disputes involving distant Native groups, intra-Indian negotiations, and forms of Indigenous diplomacy. A closer look at how the key players involved attempted to manipulate these connections for their own purposes complicates our understandings of the military conflicts of the mid-1850s and reveals the significance of evolving Native-newcomer and intra-Indian relations in this transformative decade.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it