Dissolving Tensions: Rapprochement and Resolution in British-American-Canadian Relations in the Treaty of Washington Era, 1865–1914
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book, a sequel to Phillip E. Myers's Caution and Cooperation (2008), is a requirement for every library with collections on diplomatic history. Myers has researched exhaustively in American, British, and Canadian archives. He provides fair and thorough character sketches of players from all three countries. He discusses the issues in a credible and balanced manner. The book is relevant for this period, when, despite the objections of the political and professional elites, Donald Trump had sufficient credibility to win the U.S. presidency, and the British chose to leave the European Union. Between 1865 and 1914, leaders of the United States had to deal with an electorate much more Anglophobic than themselves. Then, as now, many voters had little confidence in authority figures. Myers's account of what led to the 1871 Treaty of Washington and the immediate aftermath of that treaty is second to none. Although all of his sources are written in English (from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada), Myers also provides relevant information from Cuba, the Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Mexico, and Russia.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.098 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| 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".