MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408388741 · doi:10.1093/ahr/rhae646

Rose Miron. <i>Indigenous Archival Activism: Mohican Interventions in Public History and Memory</i>.

2025· article· en· W4408388741 on OpenAlexaff
Mary McCallum

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPublic historyHistoryRose (mathematics)Political scienceEthnologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Indigenous Archival Activism: Mohican Interventions in Public History and Memory, Rose Miron documents the creation of the largest collection of Mohican materials in the world, the Arvid E. Miller Memorial Library and Museum at Stockbridge Munsee Community located near Bowler, Wisconsin. Miron is the Vice President for Research and Education and former director of the D’Arcy McNickle Center for American Indian and Indigenous Studiesat the Newberry Library, a substantial library and archives in Chicago that houses material of special relevance to Indigenous peoples of the Great Lakes area. Miron centers Indigenous Archival Activism on the story of how, why, and to what ends the Mohican Nation Historical Committee created an archive and use it to change the way historical knowledge about Mohican Nation is produced. The committee, substantially led by Bernice Miller, Dorothy Davids, and other women of the Stockbridge-Munsee community starting in the late 1960s, has had profound impacts on the teaching and learning of the history about Indigenous people. The story of the archive is inspirational and instructional for other nations who do similar work.

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)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207