MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040930576 · doi:10.1179/072924703791202032

‘Of Great Utility’: The Public Identity of Early American Rangers and Its Impact on American Society

2003· article· en· W2040930576 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Grenier

Bibliographic record

VenueWar & Society · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaIdentity (music)HistoryPolitical scienceEmpireValue (mathematics)Service (business)ExploitLawGenealogyEconomic historyArtArchaeologyEconomyEconomicsComputer scienceComputer securityAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In late 1752Governor Peregrine Thomas Hopson dispatched to the Lords of Trade a report in which he assessed the contributions that Anglo-American rangers had made to Nova Scotia's defence. Since the mid-1740s, rangers had clashed with Mi'kmaq and Acadian guerrillas in a brutal petite guerre across the Maritimes.1 But with the costs of maintaining a nascent empire spiralling upward and the hostilities in Nova Scotia seemingly at a lull, the Lords wanted Hopson's opinion on the necessity and feasibility of keeping a company of rangers on the colony's defensive establishment. The Lords believed that disbanding the troops would offer considerable cost savings. Hopson, however, understood the continued value of the rangers to the defence of the colony. Thus, while he failed to offer a precise recommendation on the exact number of rangers needed in Nova Scotia, he nonetheless provided the Lords with a justification for keeping at least a minimal force on hand. 'I am not able to inform your Lordships that I have heard of any particular exploit worth remarking being done by the Rangers', Hopson wrote, 'the nature of their service, being irregular, scarcely admits of it, but they have most

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0290.027
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWar & SocietySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207