British Philanthropists and the Imperial Imagination or <i>The Case of the Canadians Distressed by Fire at Montreal</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reconstructs the benevolent campaign mounted in London after the devastating Montreal fire of 1765. Appealing to a greater sense of British identity, the trustees framed the French Canadian sufferers as “new subjects” entitled to both imperial benevolence and Christian charity. At the core of the subscription were notable London philanthropist Jonas Hanway and Marine Society peers John Thompson and Fowler Walker. Well versed in the mechanics of a successful charitable subscription, the trustees employed a familiar Georgian strategy using a robust print and coffeehouse campaign to solicit public support. However, the trustees overestimated the public’s acceptance of their construction of a “greater Britain” and underestimated the elevated political enmity towards the British American colonies in the era following the Seven Years’ War. A lack of donor interest compelled them to enlarge their efforts and shift away from newer charitable tactics, instead embracing more traditional avenues such as gaining the patronage of King George III and engaging the greater British public through parish fundraising. This case study highlights the complexities of transatlantic benevolence and its use to push the boundaries of British identity in the mid-eighteenth century.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".