Review of <i> Preserving the Sacred: Historical Perspectives on Ojibwa Midewiwin</i> By Michael Angel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume is a critical historiography of the nature and meaning of the Midewiwin as it was, and still is, practiced by southwestern, western, and northern Anishinaabeg (Ojibwa or Chippewa) in both Canada and the United States. A self-described "culturally sensitive outsider," Angel has approached his subject from an interdisciplinary perspective, drawing heavily from religious studies and historic and ethnographic documentation. The origins and functions of the Midewiwin are examined within the contexts of Anishinaabeg religion and society. Angel takes issue with the classification of the Midewiwin as a "revitalization movement" or a "crisis cult" by demonstrating that the "essential elements" of the Midewiwin were elaborations of traditional beliefs and practices. He argues that the roles of traditional healers, diviners, and healing ceremonies became more "complex" as the Anishinaabeg struggled with new challenges to their world following contact with European newcomers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".