MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980226225 · doi:10.1353/jmh.2008.0072

“That Ever Loyal Island”: Staten Island and the American Revolution (review)

2008· article· en· W1980226225 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ira D. Gruber

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Military History · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpanish Civil WarIndependence (probability theory)NavyHistoryGeorge (robot)Administration (probate law)Government (linguistics)LawEconomic historyPolitical scienceArchaeologyArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: “That Ever Loyal Island”: Staten Island and the American Revolution Ira D. Gruber “That Ever Loyal Island”: Staten Island and the American Revolution. By Phillip Papas . New York: New York University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-8147-6724-5. Map. Illustrations. Appendixes. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. xi, 184. $45.00. In 1775 the 3,000 residents of Staten Island, New York, were among the most loyal of British subjects in North America. Secure on their island, prosperous with farming and trade, and comfortable in a deferential Anglican society, they opposed the rebellion that had broken out in British North America. They refused to support economic sanctions against Britain; sold provisions to the Royal Navy; and instructed their delegates to the New York Provincial Congress to vote against American independence. In the summer of 1776 they welcomed the British army that landed on Staten Island to begin the restoration of royal government in New York—burning George Washington in effigy, enlisting in Loyalist units to serve as auxiliaries with the king's forces, and punishing the few rebel sympathizers left on their island. But they soon suffered for their loyalty. When the British army moved on to capture New York City and mount offensives along the Atlantic seaboard from Rhode Island to Pennsylvania and the Carolinas, Staten Islanders were [End Page 565] caught up in a bitter civil war. Their provincial units and a small British garrison were unable to protect them against attacks by the rebel forces that controlled New Jersey through most of the war. Beyond that, they were vulnerable to their friends—to the British, Hessian, and Loyalist corps that used their island as a staging area, commandeering supplies, spreading diseases, imposing martial law, plundering private and public property, and abusing individuals. Gradually, the residents of Staten Island began to question their allegiance to the crown. By the time that the rebels had won their independence, Staten Islanders were ready to celebrate the withdrawal of British forces and to resume their lives as citizens of the new United States. Few emigrated to Canada or the British Isles. This is an admirable history—thoroughly researched, clearly written, and persuasively argued. It adds significantly to what we have known about the identity of Loyalists and the intensity of the hostility that they faced during the Revolutionary War in the middle colonies. Papas might have done more to locate Staten Island in the larger history of the war: to explain where the provincial forces raised on the island served and what place they had in British strategy, to consider the impact of skirmishing around the island on rebels as well as Loyalists, and to continue the story of the island as a British staging area beyond 1776 (including Sir William Howe's incursions into New Jersey and invasion of Pennsylvania in 1777 as well as Sir Henry Clinton's attempts to surprise Washington in New Jersey in June 1780, exploit the mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line in January 1781, and relieve Cornwallis at Yorktown in September 1781). But if tightly focused, this is a most readable and valuable book: about the most intimate account we are likely to have of Loyalists in the Revolutionary War. Ira D. Gruber Rice University Houston, Texas Copyright © 2008 Society for Military History

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)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Military HistorySame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207