MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032492995 · doi:10.1353/jmh.0.0133

Benedict Arnold’s Army: The 1775 American Invasion of Canada During the Revolutionary War (review)

2008· article· en· W2032492995 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Holly A. Mayer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Military History · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeorge (robot)NarrativeSpanish Civil WarArgument (complex analysis)HistoryArt historyLawArtPolitical scienceLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Benedict Arnold’s Army: The 1775 American Invasion of Canada During the Revolutionary War Holly A. Mayer Benedict Arnold’s Army: The 1775 American Invasion of Canada During the Revolutionary War. By Arthur S. Lefkowitz. New York: Savas Beattie, 2008. ISBN 978-1-932714-03-6. Maps. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. xx, 380. $32.95. Arthur Lefkowitz says that his account is not about Benedict Arnold, but he admits that his story of the force Arnold led into Canada cannot be told without him front and center. As Lefkowitz presents him, the B in Benedict Arnold’s name stands for bold and the A for audacious. Such traits were why George Washington chose Arnold to lead the expedition, and, according to Lefkowitz, they defined the Continental Army’s commander in chief as well. Such characterization is part of the sometimes elusive argument in this lively narrative of the challenges that beset the soldiers who trekked through the northern wilderness in late 1775 and then formed the core of Richard Montgomery’s force at Quebec in December. Lefkowitz argues that Washington and Arnold epitomized initiative as they applied their imaginations, ideas from books on military science, and in Arnold’s case Montgomery’s directives at Quebec, to the mission. In the process these leaders learned about the risks and expenses of war while their men learned the reality of self-sacrifice. Lefkowitz introduces his work as “the true story of a bold plan” (p. xv). That word bold appears often, as do dedication and discipline. Lefkowitz shows how the first two were displayed and the third learned and concludes that the trials and ultimate defeat of the Arnold Expedition trained leaders and men who went on to make major contributions to winning the War for Independence. Although the author does well to point out that the lessons of failure served later success, that is a problematic conclusion to a book that is not about later success but about what happened when plans and theories met reality. Lefkowitz’s scholarship is based on a mixture of archival and published primary sources and both academic and “popular” secondary sources. He makes particular use of Kenneth Roberts’s March to Quebec: Journals of the Members of Arnold’s Expedition (New York, 1940). Such sources and his writing style indicate that the author had the admirable goal of erecting this history for general audiences upon solid foundations. Lefkowitz does engage in historical debate on occasion. While some people have blamed the bateaux for the expedition’s problems, he puts more of the blame on inexperienced crews (pp. 105–7). He also disputes Daniel Morgan’s version, and the historians who have taken Morgan’s account to be accurate, of the attack on the second barricade at Quebec (fn 125, pp. 342–3). The focus on action, however, may have led to a few slight contradictions, such as when Lefkowitz says that “Arnold’s vocabulary did not include words like caution or retreat,” but then notes how Arnold decided not to risk assaulting Quebec on 13–14 November even though he should have because it was weakly defended, though not so weakly as it was on 4 November (pp. 202–214). Lefkowitz maintains a conversational tone in Benedict Arnold’s Army as he describes and defines terrain and terms. He includes useful illustrations and maps, though three of the latter were apparently draft sketches that the publisher was supposed to digitize before the book went to press. Lefkowitz helps his readers use their imagination as well as intellect as they review the past. [End Page 1287] Holly A. Mayer Duquesne University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 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)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207