Bibliographic record
Abstract
4 ĵ indian, me ´tis, and euro-american women on multiple frontiers No single object better embodies the hopefulness of early relations between Pennsylvanians and Indians than the so-called Great Treaty Wampum Belt.It portrays two men holding hands-one English, one Lenape-to symbolize peace.The chunkier figure wearing a broad-brimmed hat is supposedly William Penn.Whatever the identity of the figures, one thing is clear to the Western eye: they are male.To the English way of thinking, diplomacy was the province of men, and perhaps by the s the Lenapes had learned that Europeans expected to negotiate only with men.But in traditional Indian societies, women were an integral part of the decision-making process, and women continued to attend treaty conferences well into the eighteenth century, in spite of objections by some colonial officials.Perhaps the Native creators of the belt conceived of the figures as generically human, not specifically men.Among the Lenapes, the primary distinctions are between animate and inanimate, human and animal, and the language lacks the gender-specific personal pronouns that English has. 1 So too the wampum belt vocabulary distinguished between humans and animals and symbolic designs, but not between men and women.In the Lenape view, women were incorporated into the belt and the agreement that it represented.Ever since the treaty belt came into William Penn's hands, it has been
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".