Completion of the Great Powers’ Struggle for Oregon in the Middle 40s of the 19th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the circumstances surrounding the final struggle for Oregon in the 40s of the 19th century. The relevance of the issues raised is due to the growing interest in the context of problems of colonization in general and the Asia-Pacific region in particular. In Russian and foreign historiography, insufficient attention was paid to this problem. The authors of the article were faced with the task of studying the balance of power in the Northwest of America, and considering aspects of struggle between England and the United States for the possession of new territories. The British, who were actively involved in the issues of retaining the coast of America between 30° and 60° North latitude, referred to the discoveries and voyages of J. Cook and G. Vancouver. By this time, the French, largely occupied with events in Europe and encroachment into islands of South Pacific, had actually distanced themselves from the struggle for Oregon. The same can be said about Spain, which even in the 40s of the 19th century, confident that the territories belonged to it by the right of discovery, had even more limited resources compared to the beginning of the 19th century. Russia, during this period, pursued an extremely cautious policy, in fact, because of position of Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs K. V. Nesselrode, it embarked on the path of a gradual loss of attention to its colonies. The United States became the main claimant for the Oregon territory in the 1840s. The article shows the reasons and circumstances of the growth of this interest, examines both domestic and foreign archival documents. The interdisciplinary methodology that was used to write the article is based on the achievements of modern scholarship. The article completes the series of articles by the authors devoted to the struggle for Oregon in the first half of the 19th century.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".