Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1871-1872, Grand Duke Alexis of Russia visited the United States and Canada over a period of three months, stopping in all the major cities of both countries and visiting sites like Niagara Falls. While in the United States, reception of the Duke was gushing and extravagant, his reception in Canada was much more subdued. While the extremely cold weather and the illness of the Prince of Wales explains some of this difference, it is also true that Canadians (and their British protectors) viewed the Russian-American friendship with trepidation and this influenced public reaction to the young Russian. British and Canadian newspapers followed the Grand Duke's progress through the United States, commenting in particular on American toadyism and hypocrisy in fawning over royalty, and suggesting that Canadians would take a different approach. Given the various calls for annexation from American politicians, and America's recent purchase of Alaska, it is understandable why Canadians and their British brethren might be concerned about the Russian-American friendship and underlying purpose of the Grand Duke's visit.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".