MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088556042 · doi:10.18357/ghr91202019341

Justified in their Actions: A Historiographic Analysis of the Causes of the Spithead and Nore Mutinies of 1797

2020· article· en· W3088556042 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Andrew M. Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Graduate History Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMutinySeditionParliamentLawAction (physics)Political sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Justified in their Actions takes an in-depth look at nearly two centuries of literature surrounding the Spithead and Nore Mutinies of 1797, one of the largest examples of collective action ever undertaken by any western military force. Despite arising from largely similar sources, the mutinies' end could not have been more different—that of the Channel Fleet at Spithead resulted in the Royal Navy's first pay raise in a century by Act of Parliament and a general pardon for all involved. The mutiny at the Nore, however, culminated in dozens of courts martial and over thirty hangings. In Justified in their Actions, the mutinies will be studied through the lens of the age-old debate of "sedition or ships' biscuits," as it becomes clear that over-analysis of a subject can be just as dangerous as not studying it at all.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.015
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.111 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Graduate History ReviewSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207