MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039140971 · doi:10.1080/02722011.2012.679153

The Narcissism of Petty Differences? Thomas Jefferson, John Graves Simcoe and the Reformation of Empire in the early United States and British–Canada

2012· article· en· W2039140971 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lawrence B. A. Hatter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpireBritish EmpireNarcissismPolitical scienceEconomic historyLawHistoryPsychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article compares the prescriptions for trans-continental empire articulated by two Anglo-American executives in the late eighteenth century: Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States (1801–1809), and John Graves Simcoe, Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada (1792–1798). While the political character of the republican Jefferson and the ultra-monarchist Simcoe differed, they articulated strikingly similar prescriptions for trans-continental empire. Both emphasized the importance of white settlement and commercial development in the West. The article explains this apparent paradox by arguing that Jefferson and Simcoe represent variations on a common Anglo-American theme of empire. The similarity of Jefferson's and Simcoe's prescriptions for new forms of empire reflected their common experience of imperial governance, the American Revolution and exposure to political and economic thought in the British Atlantic World, as well as the common challenges of winning over the volatile allegiance of western settlers and the opposition of native peoples in the trans-Appalachian West.

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)0.002
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 score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207