Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indian', when referring to the Indian subcontinent and its inhabitants, derived from the thirteenth-century Anglo-Norman indien. 1 'Indian' originated from the Greek name for the river Indus, which flows through modern-day Pakistan, and which specifically related India to the geographies of the East until the late fifteenth century. 2 After 1492, Europeans also used 'Indian' to label the Indigenous peoples of North and South America, from the Iroquois of present-day Canada to the Inca of Peru. 3 As Jonathan Gil Harris has suggested, Columbus's voyages to America turned 'Indian' into 'the capacious, portable, and problematic term for diverse peoples around the globe', so that Europeans, in many ways, 'invented "Indians"' as a result of global expansion. 4 Imtiaz Habib notes that the 'predatory impulse' of early modern expansion meant that the descriptor 'Indian' often revealed more about the intent and behaviour of the English than about the societies described. 5 Examining Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream (c.1595), John Fletcher's The Island Princess (1621), and John Dryden's Amboyna (1673), Shankar Raman concluded that 'India' throughout the early modern period was a f luid 'f inal frontier' representing 'the exotic and the unknowable'. 6 This mystery and appeal was not new, but formed in large part from the tradition of medieval travel tales, notably the fourteenthcentury Travels of Sir John Mandeville.An ostensible eyewitness account, Mandeville's peregrinations from Europe to India included encounters with green and yellow people, ox-worshippers, Saracens, Tibetans, and cannibals. 7 The religious, economic, and ethnographic descriptions in medieval texts, which mixed elements of the fantastical with knowledge facilitated by developing trade networks, helped set a template for the 1 'Indian, n.', Oxford English Dictionary.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".