John Galt and the Subaltern's Wife: Writing the History of the War of 1812
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Special Materials Reading Room in the National Library of Scotland is a document entitled “A Lady's Campaigns in Canada: Extracts from the Journal of a Subaltern's Wife, Written in Canada in 1812, 1813, and 1814.” It is part of the William “Tiger” Dunlop portion of the Dunlop Collection and is Manuscript 9303, folios 62–74. The extracts tell the story of a small, young, English military family's encounter with war on the Canadian frontier. In so doing, it reveals the gendered emotional landscapes of the war, the lived content of genteel female respectability and martial masculinity. It includes both genders centrally in the history of war. “A Lady's Campaigns in Canada” deploy, apparently unconsciously, the racialized tropes powerfully operating within the colony and the empire (because they are “uncivilized” in the document, “Indians” commit “murder” even in warfare). In this regard, the extracts make early nineteenth-century racism visible to today's readers. The document is of extraordinary note, too, in the way it conceives of history. It is a history of the War of 1812 in the Canadas that resists teleological repurposing by nationalistic myth makers. The story it tells is a fractured one that speaks through fragmentary and shifting points of view: of the subaltern's wife, of valourous officers, of husbands, and of silenced First Nations warriors only seen through a white lens. To a startling extent, “A Lady's Campaigns in Canada” leap-frogs over two centuries of manufactured myth and memory to remind historians that the calls to acknowledge diversity, tension, and racism, for example, echo the knowledge of near contemporaries about this war.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".