Bibliographic record
Abstract
When Virginians, Canadians, and Indians clashed, the Allegheny borderlands were a new ‘muddle ground’ of fateful cultural confusions rather than an established middle ground of recognized compromises. The taking of captives was an early, significant, and portentious part of the contest. Indians who were resettling the region were familiar with traditional panis slavery, with raiding for captives in long-range blood feuds, and with trading Indian captives to Europeans. Their capture of European traders, as diplomatic gifts, was a very recent development. Colonial trade rivalries became military, and the paltry forts became sites of negotiated surrender in 1754. Before European regulars arrived in numbers, or the Anglo-French war was formally declared, colonial intruders surrendered to their Indian and colonial rivals on three occasions. Virginians surrendered their incomplete stockade at the forks of the Ohio in April. In May, Virginians and Indians ambushed a Canadian party under Ensign Jumonville, and survivors of the initial skirmish sought quarter. Within five weeks, avenging Canadians and Indians forced Virginians to surrender their aptly-named Fort Necessity. In taking prisoners and hostages in the Allegheny borderlands, colonial officers adapted and violated both European and Indian conventions, and took different approaches in dealing with the independent actions of their Indian allies. On the eve of a major war, captives and their brethren learned what distinctions had been made, and that they might well be violated.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".