Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter evaluates academic fortification concepts as applied in North America, using French fort St. Frederic as an example. Fort St. Frederick was located at the Lake Champlain choke point, a short distance north of Fort Ticonderoga. With construction based in part on Vauban-style fortification principles current in Europe, its adaptation to frontier conditions was nonetheless fairly rapid. Vauban’s defensive principles, explained in a number of the period’s treatises and manuals, served as the basis for formal training in the engineering corps of the major powers. In New France, military engineers constructed a chain of fortifications in the St. Lawrence and Richelieu valleys that were adapted to conditions very different from those in Europe. In particular, these fortifications were not designed to withstand artillery sieges conducted in the European manner. In 1752, French military engineer Louis Franquet inspected the fortifications of New France. His reports describe the ways in which the forts of New France were adapted to local conditions while concluding that war in Canada is not conducted “as it is done in Europe.”
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it