MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409099094 · doi:10.3138/chr-2023-0035

“We Shall Go on Fighting”: The Political Activism of Kahnawà:ke Entertainers John and Louise McComber

2025· article· en· W4409099094 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gerald F. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical activismPoliticsHistoryPolitical scienceMedia studiesPolitical economySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

John and Louise McComber were a husband-and-wife team of entertainers who operated Chief Poking Fire’s Indian Village and Museum in the Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk) community of Kahnawà:ke during the middle decades of the twentieth century. The success of their Indian-themed tourist attraction was notable for bringing Indigenous entertainment work home and providing economic opportunity to many families in their community. In addition, it made for their distinctive coupling of entertainment work and political activism and enabled them to engage in a variety of issues of importance to Kahnawa’kehró:non, the Rotinonhsión:ni, and First Nations people in Canada in general. Based on a significant archive of McComber family papers and other primary source materials, this paper charts the development of their entertainment work and their political activities, which included efforts within Kahnawà:ke to re-establish traditional government and fight against land expropriation, support for Rotinonhsión:ni land claims and border-crossing rights, opposing forced enfranchisement and other elements of repressive and assimilationist federal Indian policies, and helping to advance the early development of pan-tribal organization in Canada.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207