Protecting the Line: Clinton Rickard, Border-Crossing and Haudenosaunee Trans-Indigeneity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After a century of working to solve the Indian problem through assimilation, the United States shifted toward the ultimate policy of absorption: citizenship. In the early 20th century, this became the primary issue between the American settler-state and Native nations. As the former demonstrated its commitment to settler-colonialism by eliminating Indigenousness as a distinct sociopolitical and ethnic identification, Native people repudiated this erasure through Indigeneity. This assertion of sociopolitical Otherness, rooted in land and attachment thereto, combatted the unilateralism of federal legislation and the abrogation of treaties. Among the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations or Iroquois), these protests occurred in relation to the border-crossing rights inhered in the Jay and Ghent Treaties. After the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924, Tuscarora chief Clinton Rickard organized resistance through the Indian Defense League of America. Along with securing the ability to freely cross the international boundary between the United States and Canada, he fought for the recognition of Haudenosaunee sovereignty, respect toward Haudenosaunee culture, and the preservation of Haudenosaunee land. By focusing on peace, unity, and treaties, Rickard protected the line, meaning both the international boundary and the cultural integrity of the Haudenosaunee and all Indigenous people.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".