Bibliographic record
Abstract
Katherine Unterman offers another story of rising American imperial ambitions and actions, in this case forged in response to a late nineteenth-century “crisis of international fugitives”—initially, often fleeing to Canada—in an age of increased and speedier travel (4). (Unterman leaves unclear how much of a crisis there really was, as opposed to a perception of one and a manipulation of that perception by financial chieftains eager to recover purloined funds.) She finds that “late nineteenth-century Americans expressed a confidence that U.S. law covered, or would soon cover, the entire globe. For Uncle Sam’s policemen, the world was borderless” (7–8). We get this fresh story of imperial ambitions on top of all the other such ambitions of this era—in trade, industry, territory, culture, and the like—that historians have tracked. Do we need another such story? Perhaps American imperialism was so capacious that there is always more of it to uncover, and Unterman does it well. Based on impressive research, her book is full of colorful figures and well-told stories, and threaded throughout is much smart, interesting analysis and argument: a first-rate first book.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".