MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1552751978

The Pacific in the War of 1812: Pelts, Ploys and Plunder

2012· article· en· W1552751978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Louis Arthur Norton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhalingNavySpanish Civil WarHistoryEconomic historyAncient historyLawPolitical scienceArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the War of 1812 the Pacific front was largely quiet except for the exploits of Captain David Porter and the frigate Essex. Porter sailed around Cape Horn without specific orders and harassed the Pacific-based British whaling fleet. Porter employed clever ploys to lure, seize and plunder whaler quarry, but ultimately the American was captured, surrendering his small force to a superior British force. The American Navy then ceded this vast ocean to the British Navy. Before the outbreak of the War of 1812 John Jacob Astor, the American entrepreneur, established the fur-trading post of Fort Astoria at the mouth of the Columbia River. The outcome of Porter’s naval defeat spoiled Astor’s dream of lucrative sales of pelts largely to the Chinese market. More important, it affected the American political and economic development of the Pacific Northwest for the early half of the nineteenth century, finally settled by the outcome of what was known as the “Pig War.” This is the story of a part of the War of 1812 whose outcome changed the westward development of the United States and Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.021
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis→French-language works237,207→