MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394606969 · doi:10.1353/nai.2024.a924398

“Ready to Be Terminated”: Guy Jennison and Ottawa Traditions of Autonomy through Elimination

2024· article· en· W4394606969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Dry

Bibliographic record

VenueNative American and Indigenous Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyEnvironmental ethicsSociologyArtPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The 1950s and 1960s policy of tribal termination is justly regarded as a genocidal federal effort to extinguish tribal sovereignty and identity. Some tribal leaders, however, like Guy Jennison, chief of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma from 1930 to 1962, supported termination. Jennison’s advocacy for termination developed out of an Ottawa political tradition that sought greater autonomy through embracing federal policies aimed at tribal elimination. In this political tradition, the Ottawa endeavored to escape federal control through eliminatory policies while subverting the eliminatory intentions of policy-makers by ensconcing their community in other dimensions of the dominant society. For Jennison, endorsing termination was a strategy to escape federal paternalism and gain greater control over tribal affairs. In anticipation of termination, Jennison led the Ottawas to reestablish tribal government through a state-chartered nonprofit corporation; by perpetuating tribal identity and prerogatives through this vehicle, the Ottawa undermined the eliminatory intentions of termination policy. Placing Jennison’s advocacy for termination within a longer tradition of Ottawa activism reveals the Native intellectual genealogies that informed his perspective and demonstrates how policies intending tribal elimination represented a complex site of Ottawa struggle against federal authority.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNative American and Indigenous StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207