Speech Draft "Shall the American Indian Remain in Bondage?" by Representative Burdick, Undated
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This undated draft of a speech written by United States (US) Representative Usher Burdick and titled "Shall the American Indian Remain in Bondage?" concerns public perceptions of the indigenous tribes in the US. In the speech Burdick notes that there are two general opinions regarding indigenous peoples, one of which is that they are part of a historical, romantic way of living that is separate from present civilization, a stance he says destroys the present indigenous peoples by trying to "civilize" them. The second general opinion is that indigenous peoples are a part of present US civilization and that going back to the past is impossible. According to the speech, within the Indian Bureau there are those who desire to perpetuate the "Indian of History" view by making indigenous peoples subservient to the US government. The draft concludes with a reference to a letter by a "descendant of the war-like Sioux" as proof that these peoples are capable of managing their own affairs. The text of this letter is not included with this draft. While this draft is undated, a later version in this collection is dated June 8, 1939. See also: Speech "Shall the American Indian Remain in Bondage?" by Representative Burdick, June 8, 1939
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.030 |
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".