MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157774266 · doi:10.21083/irss.v24i0.312

Neglected Source Materials on the Jacobite Risings

2007· article· en· W2157774266 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K.W. Schweizer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Scottish Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMaritime and Coastal Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

hile conducting research for a new biography of John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute, I have come across several manuscript collections containing valuable information on the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745 -material which seems to have been overlooked in the numerous works on Jacobitism that have appeared in recent years. 1 The purpose of this article is to draw attention to this material and where appropriate, briefly summarize the more important items in the collection in the hope that scholars will be encouraged to undertake a detailed study of the originals either in microfilm format or by personally visiting the holding institution.The first collection comprises the papers of John Calcraft (1726-1772), on deposit at Dorset County Records Office. 2 Deputy Paymaster (1745-1757), Calcraft was well known in high political circles, and his correspondence is a rich resource for contemporary events, both domestic and foreign.Of special interest to those engaged in Jacobite studies is Calcraft's outletter book (1745/46), containing letters and notes from General Thomas Wentworth co-commander of the Scottish Tradition Vol.24 1999Assorted correspondence relating to the rebellion with lists of killed, wounded and prisoners.Vol. II.Three letters to Townshend and Weston, 1726-8, from Sir Robert Walpole describing the Jacobite intrigues of the Duke of Wharton.Letters from Gen. Sir John Cope describing government counter-measures to Jacobite military plans and manoevres.

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)0.012
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.011

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Scottish StudiesSame topicMaritime and Coastal ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207