MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995838896 · doi:10.7202/1065386ar

Organizing for War in Canada, 1812-1814: The U.S. Army Experience

2019· article· en· W2995838896 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mark A. Olinger

Bibliographic record

VenueOntario History · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpanish Civil WarLawManagementPolitical scienceHistoryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the organizing, training, and equipping of the U.S. Army during the War of 1812. When the war began, Congress raised forces by expanding the Regular Army, authorizing the use of volunteers, and calling out the militia. In organizing the required forces regimental organizations were used. The lack of trained personnel and the short duration of campaigns would result in these regiments being organized into ad hoc brigades and divisions, which varied widely in strength from as small as in the hundreds to a few thousand. Most of the units had little training and were poorly equipped, creating largely ineffective fighting forces. Against this background, the types of regiments, brigades and divisions the U.S. Army employed in the campaigns against Upper and Lower Canada, a comparison of the effectiveness of the militiamen and regulars, and the significance of the battles in the Niagara River area, will be covered.

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 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOntario HistorySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207