Chickasaw Trust Fund. Letter from the Secretary of-the Treasury, transmitting annual report of funds held in trust for the Chickasaw Indians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIR: In compliance with the requi• rements of the 3d section of the act of 20th April, 1836, entitled "An act to carry into effect the treaties concluded with the Chickasaw tribe of Indians on the 20th October, 1832, and the 24th May, 1834," I have the honor to transmit herewith detailed statements of the Register of the Treasury, showing the amounts credited and the sums paid on account of the respective trusts created under said treaties upon the books of the treasury during the year 1854, (marked A,) together with the statement of the Commissioner of the General Land Office exhibiting the sales of land in the Chickasaw cession during the year 1854, (marked B.)The previous annual reports of this department contain specific statements showing the investments made and now held by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the time being, in trust for the Chickasaw national fund, except the sum of $5,650 United States six per cent.stock of the loan of 1847, which was purchased by this department on the 26th December ult., with the proceeds of lands sold and available for such investment under the treaties, and for which stock the sum of $6,554 was paid, and is charged, as shown by the Register's statement.By that statement the balance on the 1st instant due the Chickasaw national fund, was $7,876 99.The balance due the Chickasaw orphan fund at that date, was $2,304 93.And the balance due the incompetent Indian fund at that date, was $3,603 56.Very respectfully, your obedient servant, JAMES GUTHRIE, Secretary of the Treasury.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.129 | 0.056 |
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".