MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1139136338 · doi:10.5860/choice.51-3385

The Fenians: Irish rebellion in the North Atlantic world, 1858-1876

2014· article· en· W1139136338 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

VenueChoice Reviews Online · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrishHistoryAncient historyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Co-authors Patrick Steward and Bryan McGovern aim to revise our understanding of the Fenians, a transatlantic group of physical-force republican Irish nationalists in mid-nineteenth-century Great Britain and America. Steward and McGovern eschew interpretations of the Fenians as hopeless revolutionaries or maniacal terrorists. While they accept the portrayal by Irish historian Vincent Comerford of Fenianism as a means to sociability and professional networking for young men, the authors argue that Fenians also possessed “a legitimate desire to fight for Irish independence” (p. xiii). The Fenians attempts to demonstrate the sincere anti-British, nationalist convictions of Irish and Irish American (or “expatriate”) Fenians through a chronologically organized study of revolutionary activity in Great Britain, the United States, and Canada. The book succeeds admirably in delineating Fenianism’s origins and its course as a transatlantic revolutionary movement. Yet the authors are most concerned with explaining the movement’s failure to attract a broad base of support. As a result, their analysis at times focuses too much on what Fenian leaders might have done otherwise and not enough on the wider socio-economic, political, and ideological worlds inhabited by the Fenian rank and file. Among the greatest strengths of The Fenians is the authors’ attention to the difficulty of mobilizing a nationalist movement that existed across a variety of state structures. The first third of the book charts the rise and growth of Fenianism in Ireland and America between the Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848 and the American Civil War, while the balance of the study navigates between Fenian plotting and activity in Ireland, England, the United States, and Canada. Drawing from the Fenian Papers in the Catholic University archives, Steward and McGovern reveal the incessant infighting and corruption among leaders of the Fenian Brotherhood (Fenianism’s American wing) and the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB; Fenians in Ireland), as well as the tensions between the two organizations. They also emphasize the relative freedom in which Irish American Fenians operated in comparison with their co-revolutionaries in Ireland. Yet, even in the United States, Fenians had to contend with politicians whose support for Irish nationalism ebbed and flowed with election cycles. It is remarkable, then, that thousands of Irish American Fenians rallied to invade Canada in 1866, and that an American ship—Erin’s Hope—laden with weapons and Irish American Civil War veterans sailed to Ireland in 1867 to aid in an Irish Republican Brotherhood insurrection. That both the Canadian invasions of 1866 and the combined Erin’s Hope expedition and IRB rebellion of 1867 failed does not detract from the authors’ contention that Fenians presented a genuine threat to the sovereignty of Great Britain, to the security of the British Empire, and to the diplomacy of the United States. Steward and McGovern use British and American

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.302 · 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