MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324838869 · doi:10.1093/ahr/120.1.233

Ian K. Steele. Setting All the Captives Free: Capture, Adjustment, and Recollection in Allegheny Country.

2015· article· en· W2324838869 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin Sweeney

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryNarrativeNewspaperQuarter (Canadian coin)Interpretation (philosophy)GenealogyClassicsMedia studiesLiteratureSociologyArtArchaeologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ian K. Steele's Setting All the Captives Free: Capture, Adjustment, and Recollection in Allegheny Country is an impressive work of research and interpretation. It makes significant contributions to studies of Native-white relations, intercultural dynamics, the Seven Years' War, Pontiac's War, and captivity narratives. For almost a century, serious study of colonists taken by Natives during the colonial era has focused on New England. Puritan captivity narratives and Emma Lewis Coleman's New England Captives Carried to Canada between 1677 and 1760 during the French and Indian Wars (1925) have provided the raw materials for generations of historians and literary scholars. With notable exceptions, these studies—until relatively recently—have had more to say about the actions and beliefs of captives than of their captors. Steele's book shifts the focus geographically to the borderlands of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia, which he calls “Allegheny country,” and gives more weight to the actions of captors. The author combed through newspapers, captivity narratives, manuscript collections, genealogies, and local histories to compile a database of 6,130 people who were killed and captured during the period from 1745 to 1765. Unlike Coleman's compilation, Steele's database of captives includes Indians, British, French, and Canadians. While he sought to record 39 variables for each individual, almost two-thirds of those killed outright or within five days of capture were not even named, and a quarter of the captives were also without names or identifying information, which introduces uncertainties into his analysis, as the author acknowledges. This database undergirds the work's approach to the subject, but the text is fashioned from documentary sources, not numbers. If anything, a few more tables would have been helpful and might have forced the author to reconcile minor discrepancies: the total number in the database is either 6,127 or 6,130 or 6,131; the total number of captives either 2,785, or 2,788 or 2,873 (which is probably a typo).

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)0.010
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.011
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.019

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207