MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7042002118

Cherokee Indians.

2016· other· en· W7042002118 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSHAREOK (University of Oklahoma) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCherokeeMisrepresentationIndigenousQuarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 6225) to re-imburse certain Cherokee Indians for transporting themselves from North Carolina to the Indian Territory, and subsisting themselves there for one year after their arrival, having considered the same, report:The .New Echota treaty, December 29, 1835, between the United States and the Cherokee Indians, and an act of Congress approved July 29, 1848, provided for the removal of the Cherokee Indians residing east of the Mississippi, to the Indian Territory, and their subsistence there for one year, and permitted such individual Indians as desired to remove and subsist themselves to do so, at the rate of $53.33 per capita, to be paid to them from a fund set apart for that purpose.This fund, by acts of Congress, March j, 1875, and August 16, 1876, was diverted from tb:is use and applied to the education, civilization, and improvement of the Cherokee~ remaining east.Before the ratification or these last-mentioned acts of Congress a, large number of these Indians had removed and subsisted themselves, in accordance with the terms of the said New Ecbota treaty, but have never received the sums of $53.33 to which they were individually entitled.Their claims and proofs are on file in the office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs,.and the appropriation provided in this bill bas been recommended by two Commissioners of Indian Affairs, H. Price and J. D. C. Atkins.(See Ex.Doc.208, Forty-eighth Congress, second session, and Ex.Doc.84, Forty-ninth Congress, first session, hereto appended.)The cQmmittee is of the opinion that the United States is bound by its treaty obligations to pay these claims, and inasmuch as the fund which was set apart for that purpose has heen.applied to other uses by Congress since these claimants removed and subsisted themselves, and without their consent, that the said claims should be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.But the committee is of the opinion that those Indians who still remain east and h•ave not availed themselves of the permission to remove themselves to Indian Territory, and taken the benefit of the new use to which the removal and subsistence fund was diverted by Congress should not now be allowed.to remove and subsist themselves at the expense of the United States.Wherefore the committee recommend that tbe bill be amended by striking out all after the word '' removal" in line 46 down to and including the word "Territory" in line 50, and that the bill so amended pass.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6320.449

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 head0.199
Teacher spread0.188 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSHAREOK (University of Oklahoma)French-language works237,207