MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417459487 · doi:10.4000/15dm1

Christina Stanciu, The Makings and Unmakings of Americans – Indians and Immigrants in American Literature and Culture, 1879-1924

2025· article· en· W4417459487 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anjuli Trautmann

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of American Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian American and Pacific Histories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationAmerican literatureNew englandCanadian literature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rewriting Americanization: Critical Engagement with Native and Immigrant Voices of the Progressive Era 1 Christina Stanciu's The Makings and Unmakings of Americans -Indians and Immigrants inAmerican Literature and Culture, 1879-1924, published by Yale University Press in 2023, is an innovative investigation into the separate, yet intertwined histories of Native Americans and new immigrants during the Progression Era.Stanciu provides a nuanced study of Americanization approaches by the government, institutions such as boarding schools, and Native and new immigrant communities, based on case studies of print media, literature, and film.By contrasting the dominant narratives with voices of these groups, Stanciu challenges the common view of them being passive recipients of Americanization processes, while also drawing attention to their use of creative outlets as a means for self-representation.Stanciu explains how these groups were influenced by one another through politics and media, unveiling an unexpected connection and adding profound depth that encourages readers to reconsider the historical and Christina Stanciu, The Makings and Unmakings of Americans -Indians and Immig...

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0190.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
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 routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of American StudiesSame topicAsian American and Pacific HistoriesFrench-language works237,207