Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: The Far Reaches of Empire: War in Nova Scotia, 1710–1760 Joshua M. Smith The Far Reaches of Empire: War in Nova Scotia, 1710–1760. By John Grenier. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-8061-3876-3. Maps. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. xvi, 270. $34.95. John Grenier’s study of Nova Scotia’s role in the imperial wars of the early eighteenth century is an impressive re-imagining of this region’s significance in understanding the conflicts that gripped North America in this period. Grenier has thoroughly grounded himself in the relevant historiography, using a wealth of primary and secondary sources to support a bold thesis: war was the prime instrument in establishing British supremacy in northeastern North America. Grenier’s thesis is all the more impressive because recent Canadian historiography often seems to suppress the role conflict played. Canadian historian Marc Milner in a recent review found that “as a rule, ‘Canadianists’ do not read Canadian military history, and the subject has never been thoroughly explored nor has an attempt been made to integrate that [End Page 1279] story into the larger national one.” But Grenier brings a supranational North American approach, that of the “new frontier history,” that does not hesitate to explore the darker aspects of colonial history. This is most notable in his handling of the Acadians, a people who have been regarded as living in a bucolic utopia since the poet Longfellow published the poem “Evangeline” in the mid-nineteenth century. Yet Grenier does not reject the established scholarship of Naomi Griffith on Acadian society, nor that of Olive Dickason or Bill Wicken on First Nations peoples. Instead he deftly incorporates their work into his own arguments on the multi-faceted scramble for possession of peninsular Nova Scotia. Grenier’s dark vision of the competing players makes this book a compelling read. He treats all parties as equally scheming, whether they be New England Yankees, British and French military officers, Acadian settlers, the Native American/First Nations peoples, or even French priests—he plays no favorites. Grenier finds that when faced with overwhelming force these parties fell back to accommodation, but when they sensed weakness in others they quickly exploited it. Military historians will find this work most useful in its consideration of “petite guerre” in colonial North America. Grenier is at his most provocative when he posits that the con- flict known as Father Le Loutre’s War was “one of the eighteenth century’s most notable guerilla conflicts, and the Anglo-American response stands as one of the most successful instances of what today one would call counterinsurgency.” He makes no apologies for the Yankee/British ethnic cleansing of the Acadians, but at the same time makes it clear that the Acadians did not quietly acquiesce to removal: Acadian guerrillas ambushed Yankee soldiers repeatedly and effectively. In this context, the “grand dérangement” of the Acadian populace takes on a different meaning, one that elevates them from passive victims to active participants in the fifty-year struggle for Nova Scotia. Provocative, well-researched and written, this is an important work that should appeal to many audiences. Grenier has added a new dimension to the struggle for the North American frontier, one that should draw considerable comment in both Canada and the United States. Joshua M. Smith U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Kings Point, New York 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it