MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7020110822

Kinship as an Assertion of Sovereign Native Nationhood

2013· article· en· W7020110822 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyPoliticsKinshipAssertionAutonomyNationalismPower (physics)Dichotomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a concept, the nation is maddeningly difficult to define. Like “spirit” or “health”, the term “nation” encompasses a multiplicity of meanings that shift depending on the context. John Carlos Rowe has argued that the “...use of the word national ...refers to a complex and irreducible array of discourses, institutions, policies, and practices which, even if they are in flux or in competition with other structures and allegiances, cannot be easily wished away.”[i] Despite its fluid and constructed nature, the nation is nevertheless quite real and has had, since its inception, power to order the world.[ii] Because the word has such a multiplicity of meanings, I use the term in a broad sense, to refer to a collectivity with political autonomy recognized by others outside of the scope of its influence. Exploring exactly how Native peoples understood their own collective sociopolitical organization sheds light on the multiple and often contradictory understandings that Europeans and Americans developed to define Native nations and the ambiguous actions government officials often took in relation to them.[iii] Euro-Americans recognized that Native people organized themselves as coherent political entities but interpreted these collectivities through Western political constructions. \n[i] John Carlos Rowe, ed., Post-nationalist American Studies (Berkley: University of California Press, 2000) 2.\n[ii] To understand the power of the concept of the nation to order social, political, geographic, and cultural organization, see Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (New York: Verso, 1983).\n[iii] I will use the term “American” throughout to refer to a person who identifies him or herself with the political entity of the United States, accepting membership in the nation regardless of race or heritage. Although I employ this term, I recognize that historically the term “American” can sometimes become a monolithic reference that either subsumes or erases the existence of neighboring nations, such as Mexico and Canada. I have chosen the term “American” for its ease of use and employ it in a very specific sense. The term, as I use it, refers to all people who imagine themselves to be a part of what Benedict Anderson terms the deep, horizontal comradeship of the nation. See Anderson, Imagined Communities. I am not simply talking about people whom the United States recognizes as citizens, but all people who claim membership in the nation. At a certain point in history, American Indian people also become Americans in the way that I use the term. However, American Indian membership and citizenship in the United States is complicated by their continuing membership and citizenship in their own nations.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.213 · 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