Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Winston Churchill did not popularize the phrase “special relationship” until 1946, it is tempting to see the seeds of the bond he described being sown almost immediately after the War of 1812. Relations between the United States and Britain would still be bumpy, but the Treaty of Ghent established a durable peace; the 1817 Rush-Bagot Treaty reduced armaments on the Great Lakes; the Convention of 1818 set the U.S.-Canadian boundary and quieted the dispute over the Oregon Territory; and many Americans revered British culture.1 Yet Sam W. Haynes' well-researched, elegantly written book demonstrates that, from 1814 to the end of the U.S. war with Mexico, Americans felt deeply insecure about their relationship with their former imperial master. Anglophobia permeated American culture and politics; this fear and resentment of things British gave shape to a fledgling national identity. Haynes structures his work largely thematically, with most of the book's chapters illuminating Anglophobia in different arenas of American life. In all, self-doubt, a “strange mix of cultural affinity,” and a “competing geopolitical interest” gnawed at Americans (p. 294). They took umbrage at the censures of British travel writers such as Frances Trollope's widely read proclamation: “ ‘I do not like their principles, I do not like their manners, I do not like their opinions’ ” (p. 34). At the same time, Americans yearned to have literature and theater that rivaled British counterparts. They measured their writers and actors, such as James Fennimore Cooper and Edwin Forrest, against English contemporaries. Yet doing so could provide only cold comfort, for Americans simultaneously believed their nation to have a unique destiny. When they judged themselves by British standards, they implicitly exalted the parent country and uneasily emphasized continuity over originality, undercutting their own exceptionalism. They faced a dilemma common to postcolonial societies: They wanted complete independence, but found themselves unable to shed so many ofthe values and connections they had inherited. They had no sense of their true national character.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.007 |
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".