MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968549332 · doi:10.1080/14664658.2013.830369

Anti-American Themes in British Radicalism from the “Tariff of Abominations” to the Crisis of Secession: The Case of Thomas Perronet Thompson

2013· article· en· W1968549332 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael J. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Nineteenth Century History · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical radicalismPoliticsSecessionAdmirationClassicsForeign policyHistoryLawState (computer science)Economic historySociologyPolitical scienceLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

America's self-perception has long been influenced by the opinions of America held by foreigners. Admiration for the United States was strong among British radicals in the early and mid-nineteenth century, but there was an alternative position, one that was negative toward America. While some historians have assumed that respect for the United States was a dominant fixture in British radicalism, others have shown that disinterest, or equivocation, or even hostility, was more prevalent. This article explores some of the reasons behind anti-Americanism. Special attention is given to economic matters, slavery, and foreign policy from the late 1820s to the early 1860s, and to the writings and speeches of the radical M.P. and political economist Thomas Perronet Thompson (1783–1869). Thompson's thoughts and activities repay consideration because they point to the range of responses – some of which have been underestimated by historians – that the United States could evoke.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0320.018
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Nineteenth Century HistorySame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207