MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791986994 · doi:10.1177/0843871417745731

British impressment and its discontents

2018· article· en· W2791986994 on OpenAlex
Nicholas Rogers

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Maritime History · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)Argument (complex analysis)PoliticsLawSubject (documents)ImperfectPolitical scienceSociologyHistoryLaw and economicsPolitical economyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article restates the argument that naval impressment was a contentious issue in the eighteenth century. It was subject to legal challenges during the American War of Independence. It engendered mutinies and affrays and a growing volume of litigation as the century progressed. The notion that impressment was insignificant is based on an atypical set of years during which the Admiralty strove to make naval recruitment as seamless as possible by allowing regulating officers in the ports to volunteer men who might otherwise have been impressed. The Admiralty had no wish to make impressment a contentious issue in the volatile political climate of the 1790s. It was aided in this endeavour by the circumstance of dearth and destitution, and the willingness of local authorities to augment existing bounties. As the example of the Sea Fencibles subsequently revealed, volunteering was an imperfect index of patriotic endeavour, despite claims to the contrary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.257 · 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