MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

[no title]

2015· article· W4247745014 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert A. Gross

Bibliographic record

VenueThe William and Mary Quarterly · 2015
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)MillerBattleAdversarySpanish Civil WarGermanHistoryWorld War IIGeorge (robot)Economic historyAncient historyLawPolitical scienceArchaeologyArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Dangerous Guests: Enemy Captives and Revolutionary Communities during the War for Independence by Ken Miller Robert A. Gross Dangerous Guests: Enemy Captives and Revolutionary Communities during the War for Independence. By Ken Miller. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2014. 259 pages. $35.00 (cloth). Set amid the rich farmlands of the Susquehanna River Valley, sixty miles west of Philadelphia, the city of Lancaster is today a popular destination for tourists eager to see “Amish country” and to sample a Pennsylvania Dutch way of life with roots in the early eighteenth century. But nearly two and a half centuries ago, Lancaster, then a community of three thousand souls, was a magnet for a very different set of visitors. From the start of the Revolutionary War in 1775 to the last battle in 1781, this rising county seat and market center, founded in 1730, played host to thousands of prisoners of war taken in combat from Quebec to Yorktown and held under the authority of the Continental Congress. The captive soldiers encompassed both the regular forces of George III, recruited from the British Isles, and the auxiliary German troops from Brunswick and Hesse (commonly lumped together as “Hessians”), whose military service in the American war was arranged by the princes to whom they were bound. Though they were at times held “under strict Confinement” (117) and did not often linger long, these sojourners had a powerful influence on the enduring community they passed through. For in Lancaster the struggle for American independence was never far from view. Wherever they fought and won, American forces took prisoners and shipped them to the Pennsylvania town. For its contributions to the Continental cause, Lancaster deserves to be known as the stockade of the American Revolution. Ken Miller, associate professor of history at Washington College in Chestertown, Maryland, takes the little-known story of prisoners of war in the central Pennsylvania town and puts it at the heart of the inhabitants’ revolutionary experience. This account is at once a community study of Lancaster from the 1730s through the 1780s, an investigation of the shifting relations between captors and prisoners, and an inquiry into changing political and cultural identities. In Lancaster, as Miller depicts, the local was the Continental, and in tending to their “dangerous guests,” the residents—Whig, Loyalist, and neutralist alike—affirmed loyalties, vented hostilities, and forged connections with neighbors close by and fellow Patriots in distant fields. The people of Lancaster waged the American Revolution on home ground one prisoner at a time. Miller borrows his title from a letter sent by George Washington, in winter quarters with the Continental army in Middlebrook, New Jersey, to his Virginia planter-friend Benjamin Harrison in May 1779. Distressed by reports [End Page 182] of continuing escapes from detention by British prisoners of war taken with John Burgoyne at Saratoga in November 1777 and shuttled thereafter into custody up and down the continent, the commander in chief took a dim view of these enemy troops in Continental hands. Far from appreciating mild treatment, redcoat officers repaid “every mark of humanity, civility, and respect” with unending efforts “to poison the minds of those around them” and sap American morale through false reports and exaggerated boasts of British power. Though disarmed, these king’s men were still at war, and given the chance, they were quick to escape from detention and make their way back to British lines. The military prisoners, Washington sadly concluded, were “dangerous guests in the bowels of our Country” (3), ready to attack from within. These observations were well-taken, for the captive British regulars had proved a troublesome lot. But they were not the only adversaries under Continental control. Hessian troops, seized at the Battle of Trenton and elsewhere, filled up stockades in Lancaster, and they were as cooperative with their new masters as the redcoats were defiant. Nor did Washington and his aides always look at the British officers with such distrust. The commander’s severe opinion in 1779 reflected the disillusion of his early hopes to win over fellow Britons to liberty’s cause. His characterization thus summarized Americans’ experience with only some of their prisoners of...

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.252 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe William and Mary QuarterlySame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207