MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322152871 · doi:10.1353/sec.2023.0014

Metawney of Coweta, Muscogee Women, and Historical Erasure in the Eighteenth-Century Past and Our Present

2023· article· en· W4322152871 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bryan C. Rindfleisch

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in eighteenth century culture/Studies in eighteenth-century culture · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAmerican History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPoliticsGender studiesErasureHistoryElement (criminal law)SociologyEthnologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay uses the brief archival glimpses we get of Metawney, a Muscogee (Creek) Indian woman, to illustrate how Muscogee women shaped their world and the Native and American Souths more generally throughout the eighteenth century. From Creation Stories and gendered labor roles to the female dimensions of politics and trade, women like Metawney were central players within every element of the Muscogee world, including Muscogee interactions with Europeans, for they were the "life-givers" whose very lives, labor, and experiences fundamentally shaped the eighteenth-century Muscogee world. This is despite the fact that Europeans rarely bothered to document the gendered contours of the Muscogee world, an archival legacy that continues to hinder scholars' understandings of Indigenous women in early America. Finally, I link this archival erasure of Metawney and other women like her to the current epidemic of violence against Native American women in the United States and Canada, i.e., the violence that has prompted the Missing & Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls movement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.021
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in eighteenth century culture/Studies in eighteenth-century cultureSame topicAmerican History and CultureFrench-language works237,207