MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Royal Navy and the Defence of Newfoundland during the American Revolution

2013· book-chapter· en· W1531831503 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLiverpool University Press eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies of British Isles
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)Dominance (genetics)NavyFishingPoliticsVulnerability (computing)Political scienceHistoryGeographyFisheryEconomic historyLawComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter provides an analysis of the American attack on the Newfoundland fishery, undertaken in effort to position America as a threat to Britain despite the overwhelming British dominance of the Atlantic. By striking a core British asset in the Atlantic, America was demonstrating its political power and desire for independence. First, the value of fishery to Britain is explored, followed by the weaknesses of the station due to its size and small military presence, followed by the actions of officials and privateers alike during the attack. The defence of St John’s, the involvement of the French, and the impact on fishing merchants during the American Revolution also come under consideration. It concludes that in response to the vulnerability of British Newfoundland as proven by the American attack, British policy began to evolve the fishery into a full colony.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.153
Teacher spread0.141 · 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