Bibliographic record
Abstract
The expansionist agenda of the Polk administration culminated in the War with Mexico. The capture of Mexico City in September 1847 left the United States Army with the unprecedented task of occupying an enemy capital for an extended period. After the initial theaters of operation proved unable to secure a peace, Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott commenced a campaign to take central Mexico including the capital city. In March 1847, an army of 11,000 soldiers under Scott landed at Vera Cruz. In six months, Scott's army marched over 250 miles and won five major battles. In mid-September, Scott took Mexico City. Throughout the campaign, Scott attempted to implement a pacification plan in an effort to prompt Mexico to open peace negotiations. Concern for his army weighed heavily on him as he faced unprecedented challenges in occupying Mexico City after its capture. The United States simply had almost no experience in the ramifications of fighting a foreign war, other than a few brief small-scale incursions onto foreign soil at Tripoli in 1805 and in British Canada. The difficulties that arose for Scott from the situation in Mexico were frustrating. Scott pacification plan used conciliation, coercion, and force on Mexico's army and people in an effort to win the acceptance of the Mexican people. The success of his campaign depended on his army's ability to win battles while keeping Mexican civilian losses as low as possible. Scott devised a sophisticated pacification plan that was ahead of its time. This effort, together with his willingness to suspend operations after major battles to provide an opportunity for peace talks, reflected Scott's strategy. His goal was to end the war, not subjugate the Mexican people.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".