MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212065117 · doi:10.3138/cras-2021-003

Civil War Diplomacy: A Fresh Look

2021· article· en· W3212065117 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Francis M. Carroll

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpanish Civil WarDiplomacyColonialismPower (physics)Economic historyPolitical scienceIntervention (counseling)MediationLawPolitical economyEconomyHistorySociologyEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The American Civil War had a serious impact in Europe because the United States supplied vital raw materials for both Britain and France and was also a major market for their manufactured goods. The prospect of intervention in the war raised difficult issues—morally repugnant support of slavery on the one hand, but on the other, in the aftermath of the rebellions of 1848 in Europe, the possibility to weaken democratic republicanism. Mediation remained elusive. Britain, being the leading economic, naval, and colonial power, was the most threatening and most involved with both the Union and Confederate sides in the war. Britain’s diplomatic and maritime policy is the most extensively studied, augmented by fresh examinations of the British minister to the United States, Lord Lyons. New research also examines possible French involvement in the war and the complications arising from France’s invasion of Mexico.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.318 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207