MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2274239457 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2015.0060

Courts Martial and Libel: A Waterloo Officer’s Military Career and the Contemporary Press

2015· article· en· W2274239457 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ann Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEuropean Political History Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawOfficerVerdictMartial lawCommissionPolitical scienceMilitary justicePunishment (psychology)Military serviceHistorySentencePsychologyPoliticsPhilosophySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Captain John Montmorency Tucker, a veteran of the Peninsular Wars and Waterloo, was twice court martialled. After the first court martial in 1815, he was sentenced to be discharged, but this was mitigated to no punishment and the prosecutor was reprimanded. The trial was reported by the Military Register , which publicly criticized the prosecutor, and a libel action against the editor soon followed. After the second court martial in 1822, Tucker was sentenced to be reprimanded, but the king, in view of the first court martial, judged him unfit for service, and he was ordered to sell his commission. The official army report of this court martial published the charges, verdict, sentence, and change of sentence with no commentary. This article examines why the cases were reported differently and the significance of the libel charge against the Military Register .

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.178 · 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
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicEuropean Political History AnalysisFrench-language works237,207