Bannock Diplomacy: How Métis Women Fought Battles and Made Peace in North Dakota, 1850s–1870s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Métis women have been neglected in scholarship because they are hard to find in historical records. Seeking out little-used sources and amplifying their voices in them demonstrate that they were significant figures in maintaining peace within their communities on the northern Great Plains in the mid- to late nineteenth century. Through their actions in battles and diplomatic negotiations, they showed themselves to be particularly skilled in conflict resolution. This article highlights two key instances in which Métis women used both courage and judiciousness to support their communities. The first is the 1851 Battle of Grand Coteau between the Yanktonais Sioux and a Métis and Anishinaabe bison-hunting party. The second is a Métis trading family negotiating with Lakota in the late 1870s through the actions of Sarah Nolin. In this article, we survey key historical moments in Métis women’s lives and experiences in the geography now known as North Dakota, exemplifying their approaches to diplomacy, conflict resolution, and political affirmation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".