MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W405719528 · doi:10.5860/choice.42-5465

Friends and enemies in Penn's Woods: Indians, colonists and the racial construction of Pennsylvania

2005· article· en· W405719528 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueChoice Reviews Online · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontierEconomic JusticeCONTESTWhite (mutation)DreamCherokeeHistorySociologyColonialismReligious studiesLawArchaeologyPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contents List of Maps and Figures Acknowledgments Introduction: Daniel K. Richter and William A. Pencak Part I: Peoples in Conversation 1. New Sweden, Natives, and Nature Michael Dean Mackintosh 2. Colonialism and the Discursive Antecedents of Penn's Treaty with the Indians James O Neil Spady 3. Imagining Peace in Quaker and Native American Dream Stories Carla Gerona 4. Indian, Metis, and Euro-American Women on Multiple Frontiers Alison Duncan Hirsch Part II: Fragile Structures of Coexistence 5. Female Relationships and Intercultural Bonds in Moravian Indian Missions Amy C. Schutt 6. The Death of Sawantaeny and the Problem of Justice on the Frontier John Smolenski 7. Justice, Retribution, and the Case of John Toby Louis M. Waddell 8. The Diplomatic Career of Canasatego William A. Starna Part III: Toward a Pennsylvania 9. Delawares and Pennsylvanians after the Walking Purchase Steven C. Harper 10. Squatters, Indians, Proprietary Government, and Land in the Susquehanna Valley David L. Preston 11. Metonymy, Violence, Patriarchy, and the Paxton Boys Krista Camenzind 12. Real Indians, White Indians, and the Contest for the Wyoming Valley Paul Moyer 13. Whiteness and Warfare on a Revolutionary Frontier Gregory T. Knouff Afterword: James H. Merrell Abbreviations Notes Contributors Index

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChoice Reviews OnlineSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207