Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1960’s there has been an increase in assertions of Indigenous identity. In the Ohio Valley Region (Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky) this has been expressed through performance at powwows, re-enactments and restored ceremonies. In the USA, American Indian identification is founded on government recognition, racial appearance, or language. Since the region’s languages have disappeared, the “racial” appearance of the people is ambiguous, and government recognition is mainly absent, how has this identity been maintained over time? Analysis of interviews and the other data demonstrated that the identity claim is not only a newly emergent construction. Indigenous identity has been maintained performatively in some quarters while remaining submerged in others. It continues to be constructed and performed drawing from combinations of folk and Appalachian culture and “Pan-Indian” powwows. Similarities were found with other mixed peoples, such as the Metis of Canada. This counters widely held conceptions that there are no “real Indians” in the region, calls into question why such claims are made, and provides a basis for understandings of how claims to identity are negotiated.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".