MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967681792 · doi:10.1353/jmh.2007.0230

Still a Mystery? General Grant and the Historians, 1981–2006

2007· article· en· W1967681792 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ethan S. Rafuse

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Military History · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican and British Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissenting opinionScholarshipQuarter (Canadian coin)CitationClassicsHistoryLawPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1879 General William T. Sherman remarked that, although he had known Ulysses S. Grant for years, "to me he is a mystery, and I believe he is a mystery to himself." Over the last quarter-century many authors have claimed to have solved or at least shed fresh light on the mystery of Grant. For the most part, they have portrayed Grant as a great general and good man, dissenting strongly with the highly negative portrayal of Grant contained in William S. McFeely's 1981 Pulitzer Prize–winning study. This essay traces the evolution of Grant scholarship since 1981 and suggests possible lines of inquiry for future Grant scholars.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0110.024
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Military HistorySame topicAmerican and British Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207