MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239365385 · doi:10.1093/jahist/jas482

Indians and British Outposts in Eighteenth-Century America

2012· article· en· W4239365385 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. P. Barr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American History · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAmerican History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontierArchaeologyHistoryGeographyPower (physics)EthnologyAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indians and British Outposts in Eighteenth-Century America is an intriguing examination of five British forts and the roles each filled along the early American frontier during the era of the Seven Years' War. Each of the five forts—Fort Loudoun at the intersection of the Tellico and Little Tennessee Rivers on the western North Carolina border, Fort Allen on the Lehigh River in eastern Pennsylvania, Fort Michilimackinac on the Straits of Mackinac joining Lakes Huron and Michigan, Fort Niagara overlooking the drainage of the Niagara River into Lake Ontario, and Fort Chartres on the Mississippi River in the Illinois Country—occupied an important place on the mid-eighteenth-century North American landscape. Daniel Ingram demonstrates that these outposts were far more than just bastions of British power on the frontier. They were contact points, zones of interaction, and multicultural communities whose existence and function depended as much on Indians as they did on the British or their colonists. Indeed, the focal point of Ingram's analysis is the impact and influence that Indian peoples had on the British posts and the varying strategies and mechanisms that native peoples employed to incorporate the forts into their daily lives. Ultimately, Ingram concludes that Indians maintained “considerable effectiveness in defining fort-based cultural relations and determining the means of life and death in the backcountry” (p. 26).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American HistorySame topicAmerican History and CultureFrench-language works237,207