Defying Notions of Nineteenth Century Masculine Honour in the War of 1812: The Case of the American Burning of Newark, December 1813
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Burning of Newark was a key moment in the War of 1812 that exemplifies the viciousness of war and is often described as an atrocity with intense repercussions for both sides. Historians have discussed the burning of Newark and its implications but this paper sheds new light on the topic by evaluating how the burning of Newark represents a direct defiance of masculine honour as it was expected from soldiers during the war. By evaluating communications between American General George McClure and American Secretary of State John Armstrong it becomes clear that when their own masculine honour is questioned, it became critical for them to retaliate and defend their own honour. Their defense shows that there is a clear line in war that should not be crossed to maintain one’s honour, and when it is crossed it is essential to defend their actions and thereby their honour. This paper further evaluates war claim losses to reveal who was affected by the burning, what was lost and what this means for McClure in his defiance of masculine honour.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".