The Struggle for Oregon in the Last Third of the Eighteenth – First Quarter of the Nineteenth Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the article, the authors examine the circumstances of the rivalry for Oregon in the 1770s and the first quarter of the nineteenth century. Historians of Russian America and those who study early US history have paid little attention to this issue, at a time when it was in Oregon that the rivalry between Britain, Russia, France and the United States for possession of the new colonies was ignited. The Spanish, who established their colonies in America in the six-teenth century, laid claim to the entire west coast. The English paid very close attention to the Oregon coast between 30° and 60° N, starting with the expeditions of James Cook and George Vancouver. The French became interested in the region in 1785–1788 during the ex-pedition of the Comte de Lapérouse. Russia, with its colonies in Alaska and the Aleutian Is-lands, pursued a measured and cautious policy. Spain, confident that the territories belonged to her by the right of discovery, had very limited forces for their development. The principal rivals for Oregon territory in the 1820-s were Great Britain and the United States. The article is draws on the latest archival finds. The authors draw on an extensive, inter alia, recent do-mestic and foreign historiography. The methodology used in writing the article is based on the achievements of modern historical scholarship. The article is the first in a series of intended further publications by the authors on the study of the struggle for Oregon and the US West Coast.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".