Articles: Native American Demographic and Tribal Survival into the Twenty-first Century
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
The indigenous tribal populations of North America north of the Rio Grande River-referred to generically here as "Native Americans," a term encompassing American Indians, Inuit (Eskimo), and Aleutian Islanders-declined drastically following European colonization.How drastic the decline was is debated since estimates of aboriginal population size for the area vary widely.The classic estimate of aboriginal population size for this area is James Mooney's 1,152,000 million for North America north of the Rio Grande River at first (extensive) European contact (see Mooney 1928).Subsequent scholars generally accepted Mooney's estimate until 1966, when Henry Dobyns (1966) asserted an aboriginal population size for North America north of Mexico of between 9.8 and 12.25 million; in i983, he increased his asserted size to 18 million (north of Mesoamerica) (see Dobyns 1983).Scholars now agree that Mooney's population estimate significantly underestimated aboriginal population size for the area north of the Rio Grande River.Most scholars also consider Dobyns's estimates to be excessive, although little consensus for a higher population figure exists.Estimates vary from around 2 million by Douglas Ubelaker (1988) to almost 4 million (reduced from an earlier estimate of almost 4.5 million) by William M. Denevan (1992Denevan ( [1976]], xviixxix) to the slightly more than 7 million estimate I arrived at and continue to use (see Thornton and Marsh-Thornton 1981, 47-53; Thornton 1987, 25-32).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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