MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327284320 · doi:10.2307/4486105

Napoleon's Troublesome Americans: Franco-American Relations, 1804-1815

2006· article· en· W2327284320 on OpenAlexaff
Reginald C. Stuart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American History · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmperorContext (archaeology)RhetoricPoliticsHistoryNarrativeOptimismLawPolitical scienceEconomic historyAncient historyTheologyPhilosophyArtLiteratureArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If Americans troubled Napoleon Bonaparte, he doubly troubled them, as Peter P. Hill shows in this persuasive account of Franco-American relations between 1804 and 1815. Hill emphasizes Napoleon, but his narrative and analysis straddle the Atlantic Ocean during the wars of this age to show how the relationship unfolded. Americans could not escape this context, so their rhetoric about freedom of the seas and the rights of neutrals voiced impossible dreams that could not affect their tormentors. Hill divides his time among the presidents, the emperor, and their diplomats. If Louis Sérurier, French minister to the United States, was cynical, Joel Barlow, the American minister to France, was ebullience and optimism personified, pursuing even rumors of an agreement, even though Napoleon offered little but subterfuge. Barlow even chased his hopes across Europe to die of pneumonia in Poland while Napoleon, faced with political ruin after disaster in Russia, ignored him and bolted for Paris.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0280.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American HistorySame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207