MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564859464 · doi:10.3138/cjh.48.2.401

<i>Remaking the British Atlantic: The United States and the British Empire after American Independence</i>, by P.J. Marshall

2013· article· en· W2564859464 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Blazej Szpakowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)EmpireEconomic historyPolitical scienceBritish EmpirePolitical economyHistorySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remaking the British Atlantic. The United States and the British Empire after American Independence, by P.J. Marshall. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012. viii, 335 pp. $65.00 US (cloth). In the aftermath of the American Revolution, Britain and the fledgling United States diverged sharply politically even as their cultures, economies, and societies drew them ever closer. These seemingly contradictory trends form the basis of P.J. Marshall's important new book, Remaking the British Atlantic. Among the first rank of British imperial historians, Marshall long specialized in the history of British India before turning to the interconnections between that historiography and that of the British Atlantic in this book's predecessor, The Making and Unmaking o[Empires (Oxford, 2005). As befits its title, the outlook of Remaking the British Atlantic is both British and Atlanticist, drawing diverse transoceanic connections between British, American, Caribbean, and Canadian history. While the book occasionally hits an errant note, especially in its analysis of the latter three historiographies, it is undoubtedly a magnificent achievement. In the opening section, Marshall emphasizes the estrangement of the two countries in politics, press, and public opinion. Even when support for the American war dwindled in Britain, there was little sympathy for America, no enthusiasm for its political programs, no interest in concessions, and a general dislike of American manners, political culture, and leadership. To Americans, meanwhile, Britain was a seething pit of hierarchy, corruption, and militarization that was widely perceived as actively seeking to foment rebellion in America. The 1783 treaty ending the war --incomplete, unenforceable and never properly fulfilled served only to generate resentment rather than promote reconciliation. Marshall's characterization of the two countries may not be entirely novel, but it is incisive, thoroughly convincing, and laced with innumerable fascinating details. Perhaps more intriguingly, Marshall next disputes the familiar (if far from universally accepted) narrative of the loss of America causing a swing to the east towards India. He persuasively shows that despite views of West Indians as truculent and somewhat suspicious, the Atlantic remained central to British imperial policy until the mid-nineteenth century, as abolitionists confidently supposed plantations would flourish under free labour. Britain's government also tenuously explored adventures against Spain in Florida and the Mosquito Coast, and there were initially expansive plans for the agricultural development of the remnants of British North America, though these latter schemes soon faltered. Despite the political separation of the two countries and the mutual dislike among their populace, Marshall ably shows in the second section how they remained closely tied at multiple levels economically, socially, and culturally. Although the 1780s saw British policymakers unilaterally restrict American commercial activities in several major markets, notably the West Indies and the Atlantic fisheries, American shipbuilding nonetheless revived, the US opened up trade to Asia, and direct trade blossomed. …

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HistorySame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207