The Battle of the Windmill Revisited: As recounted by Lieutenant Andrew Agnew, 93rd Highland Regiment of Foot, 8 December 1838
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The failure of William Lyon McKenzie, Louis Joseph Papineau, and other like-minded reformers to bring about meaningful change in the political, economic, and social structure of Upper and Lower Canada in 1837 did not end the greater possibility of rebellion, and in fact a greater threat came in 1838, with widespread filibustering along the American border. On 11 November 1838, a force of about 400 men set out from New York State for Prescott, Upper Canada, its goal being the capture of Fort Wellington and the severance of communications between Upper and Lower Canada. The force, led by Nils von Schoultz, a true character in every sense of the word, landed and took up positions in a windmill and six stone house at the village of New Jerusalem, where they intended to hold out until reinforcements arrived from Ogdensburg, New York, and from Upper Canada itself. The reinforcements never arrived and the ‘sympathizers’ were left to fight a strong force of British regulars and militia.\nContemporary accounts of the Battle of Windmill are difficult to find, and are often limited in scope. Several brief accounts have been reprinted in J.A. Morris, Prescott 1810–1967 (1967), and accounts of the conflict may also be found in contemporary issues of the Kingston Chronicle and Gazette. However, the information remains somewhat cursory and limited in colour and detail. The letter reprinted below was written on 8 December 1838, the very day Nils von Schoultz was executed, by an officer of the 93rd Highland Regiment of Foot who had taken an active part in the conflict. The letter’s author, Lieutenant Andrew Agnew of Lochnaw, was the eldest son of one of southern Scotland’s prominent landed families.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".