The Convention of 1818: preparation, conclusion, consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radical changes in the international situation after the end of the Napoleonic Wars forced many states, and first of all England, to rethink the system of their foreign policy interests. In the new situation, the question of revenge against the United States has lost its relevance for England. If from 1783 and before the War of 1812, this problem was important for England, now the bet began to be placed on establishing stable trade and economic relations, which, coupled with control over Canada, allowed us to hope that North America would turn into a vast extremely profitable market for England’s economic expansion. The purpose of the study is an attempt to identify the peculiarities of the origin of the Canadian-American borders to find out what role the Treaty of 1818 played in the development of relations between London and Washington. The relevance of the study lies in the fact that there are practically no studies in Russian historiography that specifically consider the convention itself, despite the fact that this event laid the current border of the two states. It was concluded that in the general vector of development of Anglo-American relations, thanks to the Treaty of 1818, the trend towards stabilization was undoubtedly increasing.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.004 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".