Bibliographic record
Abstract
Choctaw Confederates opens with a promising premise: “the Choctaw experience … was a southern experience” (p. 6). But instead of exploring how a complex slaveholding Choctaw Nation both lived within and departed from a fundamental U.S. experience, the book disaggregates the nation's population into “Indians,” “Blacks,” and “whites” to tell their separate stories. Chapters on early Choctaw history, warriors who fought for the Confederacy, the experiences of, first, enslaved people and then freed people, and the relationship between war and masculinity leave out other key topics such as politics, the wartime economy, and the home front. The entire work never adds up to more than the sum of the book's discrete parts. Other problems compound the lack of a narrative that could bind the disparate pieces into something bigger and bolder. When, for example, the question of common cultural practices between Choctaws and southern “whites” arises, Fay A. Yarbrough notes that other people have examined the issue and then leaves it—an idea crucial to her opening argument that the Choctaw experience was also a “southern” experience—unexplored except by inference. An assertion that enslavement made agricultural labor “appropriate only for people of African descent” fails to account for the fact that nonslaveholding families undertook the vast majority of the work of cultivating crops and tending livestock and appear not to have been disfranchised or disregarded because of it (p. 52). When describing the Confederate advantage over Union forces at the Battle of Honey Springs as 2:1, Yarbrough puts the actual numbers as five thousand against four thousand, while across the same span of pages, both the Confederates and the Union seek, in the same campaign, to capture Fort Gibson while it was in Federal possession all the time. Mentioning the importance of war dancing to Choctaws in one part of the book but then not explaining it until later likewise opens cracks in the interpretation by asking readers to reassemble the pieces to make a comprehensive and comprehensible case.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".