Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars traditionally have tended to limit early American history to the thirteen British colonies that rebelled and became the United States. More recent scholarship, however, has expanded the chronological and geospatial parameters of the field. Rather than ignoring places and peoples until the United States expanded west in the nineteenth century, “continental” historians now include most of North America (and even Alaska and Hawaii). In so doing they have come to recognize that Native peoples controlled the vast majority of the continent well past the American Revolution. They have offered more nuanced interpretations of the important roles played by French, Spanish, and other European colonizers in this history, both in their own right and as they interacted with British colonies. In so doing they have had to avoid a teleology focusing only on the places that eventually became part of the United States. Recognizing the irrelevance of present-day US borders to the colonial period, continental historians try to draw on and include the histories of northern Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean where relevant. Most general works on colonial America now incorporate continentalism at least to some extent. Historiography of the American Revolution and the early Republic, by contrast, has been slower to embrace this scholarly turn. Histories of the revolutionary period still generally focus on the thirteen rebellious colonies, and most histories of the early republic still see the continent solely from the perspective of an expansive United States. Even so, recent scholarship suggests that the continent is beginning to play a larger role in these later periods. This article focuses on historians who explicitly embrace continentalism and those works stressing themes such as Indigenous power, which continentalism has brought to the fore.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.176 | 0.043 |
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".