MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074863147 · doi:10.7202/031117ar

Irish Convict Transportation and the Reach of the State in Late Hanoverian Britain

2006· article· en· W2074863147 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Simon Devereaux

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvictIrishSettlement (finance)State (computer science)HistoryScotsLawPenologyWelshCriminal justicePolitical scienceGenealogyCriminologySociologyArchaeologyBusinessArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The difficulties encountered by English authorities in resuming the regular and effective transportation of convicts overseas between the loss of the original American destination in 1775 and the opening of a penal settlement in New South Wales in 1787 are well known to historians of criminal justice. Far less so is the contemporaneous convict crisis in Ireland. This article considers the practice of convict transportation from Ireland throughout the eighteenth century. In particular, it examines a series of three dramatic incidents of the late 1780s in which Irish convicts were unscrupulously (though not illegally) abandoned in Cape Breton, Newfoundland and the Leeward Islands. It argues, first, that such practices were not entirely surprising given the great difficulties that had often been experienced in transporting convicts from Ireland even before 1775. It goes on to suggest that the subsequent decision of authorities in London to assume a directive role in the transportation of Irish convicts was informed by changing perceptions of the British state in both its national and imperial dimensions.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.159
Teacher spread0.150 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207