Проблема боеспособности вооруженных сил США в период англо-американской войны 1812–1815 гг. И американское общество
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author analyses the capability of the U.S. armed forces during the Anglo-American war (1812–1815), as well as the influence of the war on the American society. Beginning the war President Madison could not count on the power and strength of the U.S. army. He relied on old generals and their experience of the War for Independence. But his hopes failed. American troops were not able to invade Canada or protect their own country from invasion. The society got divided. There were “war-hawks” as well as opponents of “Mr. Madison’s war”. Anti-war sentiment was at its strongest in New England. It diminished military efficiency of the army and militia. Desertion became usual. The situation changed after a series of defeats and after Washington was captured and burnt. Patriotic enthusiasm became a common feeling. The American hymn “Star-spangled banner” was written at that period and dedicated to the defenders of Fort McHenry. The number of volunteers increased, as well as federal assignment for the army and navy. The peace treaty restored the status quo. The American society became more united. The Anglo-American war of 1812 was nicknamed “the Second War for Independence”. Strengthened defensive capacity of the American troops was among the results of the war.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.037 |
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 it