Bibliographic record
Abstract
Framed by the Haudenosaunee legal traditions of the Great Law of Peace and the Two Row-Covenant Chain Wampum, this article performs a close reading of Sagoyewatha’s (Redjacket’s) early diplomatic speeches at the Council of Tioga Point (1790) to Timothy Pickering over the murder of two Seneca citizens. I argue that American misinterpretation of the Two Row-Covenant Chain and Great Law of Peace as metaphors led them to miss opportunities for condolence, conciliation, and peaceful coexistence with their Haudenosaunee brethren. Sagoyewatha’s oratory, deeply grounded in Haudenosaunee cultural empiricism and discourses of good mindedness, respect, and strength in unity, offers an example of metonymic diplomacy and being that remains pertinent to present-day conflicts over Haudenosaunee—and more broadly, Indigenous—treaty rights, land title, self-determination, and sovereignty. I query whether the development of metonymic literacy in eighteenth-century poetics might have provided—and might still provide—settlers with a deeper understanding of their Two Row-Covenant Chain responsibilities based on a relationship of separateness, autonomy, difference, and solidarity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".