Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explains that many Britons across the Atlantic remained loyal in the early months of 1775. A significant minority of New Yorkers, in fact, opted for loyalty over rebellion. They took to the streets and turned to Rivington's press to construct a persuasive pro-British narrative of the crisis that enjoyed support in mainland British cities like Glasgow and even among some Britons in colonial port cities like Halifax and Kingston. This narrative — Britain's common cause — was, to some extent, defensive and reactive, for it depended mostly on refuting an emerging Patriot cause. But their cause was proactive, too. Loyalist writers took particular aim at the newly formed Continental Congress and the various local committees created to enforce the Continental Association, which they declared were illegitimate, unrepresentative, and resembled popish tyranny. The problem, however, was that this British common cause failed to articulate a clearly defined enemy at a crucial moment in the conflict. Ultimately, the British common cause — a new, shared understanding of Loyalism constructed by loyalist writers in the winter and spring of 1774–75 — struggled to convince a majority of Britons that the Patriot cause was dangerous and that Patriot leaders and their supporters were a legitimate threat to the nation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".