Naval Occurrences of the Late War Between Great Britain and the United States of America- 1817
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Full title is "A Full and Correct Account of the Chief Naval Occurrences of the Late War Between Great Britain and the United States of America; preceded by a Cursory Examination of the American Accounts of their Naval Actions Fought Previous to that Period: to Which is Added an Appendix; with Plates" This is an expanded version of author William James' pamphlet "An Inquiry into the Merits of the Principal Naval Actions between Great Britain and the United States." (Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1816) In this work he discussed how American ships, during the War of 1812, were larger and more heavily armed and manned than those of the British. He therefore, stated that American victories were due only to their greater numerical force and not their superior seamanship. Naval Occurrences is a thorough documentation of the naval operations from the British perspective that addresses contradictions and inconsistencies within the American official documents as well as political and media accounts. This is perhaps his motivation for the words "Corrected Account" within the title. James' sentiments towards the US most likely sprouted from being held prisoner while visiting in 1812. (He was falsely accused of being a renegade seeking revenge on the US.) In 1813, he escaped to Halifax where he began writing on various naval topics. James became one of the leading authorities on British Naval History.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.005 |
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".