The British View of Neutrality in 1872
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1872, the United States (US) and Great Britain (GB) met in Geneva to arbitrate a number of claims which had arisen between them mainly during the US Civil War (1861-65), also referred to as the American Civil War (ACW). 1 The main thrust of the arbitration was the issue of ships which had been built in Britain and sold to the rebellious Southern Confederacy for use during the belligerency.2 The central issue of the US claims, which were more widely known as the 'Alabama claims,' after one of the British-built ships, was whether or not GB had breached the rules of armed neutrality during the ACW. 31 Wider claims included British ones: (1) the navigation of the St. Lawrence River; (2) fisheries' disputes; (3) transit of goods through Maine, the lumber trade down the St. John River, and reciprocal trade between the US and the Dominion of Canada; (4) the Manitoba boundary; (5) the San Juan water boundary; (6) British claims arising from the ACW; and, (7) Canadian claims for 'Fenian' raids.See, e.g., J.T. Adams, A History of the American People (London: Routledge, 1933), 141-144; J.B. Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States has been a Party, vol. 1 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1898), 539, 540-541.2 Initially comprising South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas, soon joined by Virginia, Arkansas, and North Carolina.The states of Missouri and Kentucky were later accepted, unofficially, as members.3 The Tribunal would examine a total of 18 such claims.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".