Bibliographic record
Abstract
any author investigating aspects of First nations history must, if by peer scrutiny alone, delineate approaches to descriptive nouns and chronological representations.Yet each label assigned to the original peoples who traversed the land mass known as Beringia to eventually populate "the americas" is flawed in both proof and construct.anthropologists, geneticists, and historians, not to mention the oral histories of the descendants of these original hunterexplorers, provide numerous, and often contradicting, explanations and theories for the settlement of what we now refer to as the Western hemisphere.the name Beringia itself is proof enough of the endless cycle of deconstruction and reconstruction of terminology.the Bering Strait, over which a 1,000 mile-wide "bridge" joined Siberia to alaska, between 60,000 and 16,500 years ago, was one passage by which peoples "globalized" (as some historians purport) the entire land mass approximately 12,000 years ago.When the danish-born navigator of the russian navy, Vitus Jonassen Bering, travelled the coastal waters of the arctic in 1741, he surely was not aware that the geographical namesakes bestowed upon him would ultimately lead to such political and academic discourse.What follows is a detailed account of the involvement of Canadian (and at times american, by way of geographical, historical, and ethnological association) 1 First nations, indigenous, native, aboriginal, and indian populations during the First World War-all of these nomenclatures are flawed and debatable in perception and definition.a lifelong friend of the Aamjiwnaang Chippewa (ojibwa) of Sarnia once told me, "tim, i was born an indian, raised an indian, treated like an indian, so i will die an indian."i assumed he had heard this somewhere before or, perhaps, was misquoting Sioux activist russell Means or Vine deloria Jr's Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto (1969). 2 nevertheless, he taught me much in that adolescent conversation about "indianness" and i will use, for this work, his blunt and honest appraisal.J.r. Miller asserts, "Much of the language used in relation to aboriginal peoples is as likely to obscure as to clarify what and whom is under discussion….
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.472 | 0.289 |
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".