Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005, a service in Halifax commemorated US soldiers and sailors who perished in Britain’s Melville Island prisoner-of-war camp during the War of 1812 and whose remains now lie on Deadman’s Island, a nearby peninusla. The service culminated nearly a decade of debate, in which local history enthusiasts, the Canadian and American media, and Canadian and US politicians rescued the property from developers. The media in particular had highlighted the prisoners’ struggles with disease and death, often citing the sombre memoirs of survivors.1 Curiously, Canadian investigators relied largely upon American accounts and did little research on efforts at amelioration from the British perspective.\nCoverage has emphasized British cruelty, citing accounts of internees such as that edited by Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse (an American medical officer) and American deaths at the hands of guards at Dartmoor Prison in England during a riot in April 1815,2 while ignoring more positive elements, such as medical care.\nThis article explores British medical care for American prisoners of war in terms of organization, delivery, treatments and results, and US observations of the matter. In fact, British medical authorities addressed problems in the custody system and provided humane and compassionate medical care.\nIn the absence of international codes for the treatment of prisoners and substantial provision for handling thousands of prisoners of war, upkeep was difficult, rendering medical care often chaotic. British medical officers none the less cared for captives adequately and comparably to the way they assisted their own forces.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".