Yaqui Indigeneity: Epistemology, Diaspora, and the Construction of Yoeme IdentityOur War Paint Is Writers’ Ink: Anishinaabe Literary TransnationalismStoking the Fire: Nationhood in Cherokee Writing, 1907–1970
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Review| March 01 2021 Yaqui Indigeneity: Epistemology, Diaspora, and the Construction of Yoeme IdentityOur War Paint Is Writers’ Ink: Anishinaabe Literary TransnationalismStoking the Fire: Nationhood in Cherokee Writing, 1907–1970 Yaqui Indigeneity: Epistemology, Diaspora, and the Construction of Yoeme Identity. By Tumbaga, Ariel Zatarain. Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press. 2018. 215 pp. Paper, $35.00; e-book, $35.00.Our War Paint Is Writers’ Ink: Anishinaabe Literary Transnationalism. By Spry, Adam. Albany: SUNY Press. 2018. xx, 234 pp. Cloth, $95.00; paper, $32.95; e-book available.Stoking the Fire: Nationhood in Cherokee Writing, 1907–1970. By Brown, Kirby. Norman: Oklahoma Univ. Press. 2018. xx, 292 pp. Cloth, $39.95; paper, $24.95; e-book available. Kathryn Walkiewicz Kathryn Walkiewicz Kathryn Walkiewicz is assistant professor of nineteenth-century American literature and culture at the University of California San Diego. She coedited The People Who Stayed: Southeastern Indian Writing after Removal with Geary Hobson and Janet McAdams (2010), and her work has appeared in NAIS: Native American and Indigenous Studies Association, J19: The Journal of Nineteenth-Century Americanists, Walt Whitman Quarterly Review, and elsewhere. She is currently working on a book manuscript about Indigeneity, territory, and states’ rights in the nineteenth century. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google American Literature (2021) 93 (1): 151–153. https://doi.org/10.1215/00029831-8878578 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter Email Permissions Search Site Citation Kathryn Walkiewicz; Yaqui Indigeneity: Epistemology, Diaspora, and the Construction of Yoeme IdentityOur War Paint Is Writers’ Ink: Anishinaabe Literary TransnationalismStoking the Fire: Nationhood in Cherokee Writing, 1907–1970. American Literature 1 March 2021; 93 (1): 151–153. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00029831-8878578 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter Books & JournalsAll JournalsAmerican Literature Search Advanced Search Ariel Zatarain Tumbaga, Adam Spry, and Kirby Brown situate their studies within specific Indigenous contexts that affirm the continued vibrancy of Indigenous peoples and lifeways and the importance of story to self-determination and decolonial futures. Read in conversation, the texts baldly demonstrate that the eradication of Indigenous nations was a central tenet of Indian policy across Mexico, the United States, and Canada in the long twentieth century and moreover that literature played an important role in these projects. The shape of these colonial efforts varied, but there is disturbing consistency in North American colonial states’ vigilant attacks on Indigenous self-determination and reliance on displacing living Indigenous peoples and reifying fictionalized “Indians.” While much has been written about nineteenth-century colonial cultural production in this regard, there has been less scholarly attention on the significance of twentieth-century literature. More importantly, however, Tumbaga, Spry, and... Copyright © 2021 by Duke University Press2021 Issue Section: Book Reviews You do not currently have access to this content.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".