The Beginning of Additional Instructions and the Two Battles Of Finisterre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precisely when a substantial body of Additional Fighting Instructions generally adopted by admirals commanding-in-chief made its first appearance is uncertain, but it seems that much had been achieved in that direction before the War of the Austrian Succession ended in 1748. Writing of that war ( c. 1913, though not published till 1920) Captain H. W. Richmond, as he then was, included in an appendix a set of fifteen articles issued by Hawke in manuscript in September 1747 when commanding the Western Squadron. In Richmond’s view, however, it was unlikely that these additional instructions originated with Hawke and in fact they were probably inherited from either Martin or Anson or Warren, his consecutive predecessors in this command from 1746 onwards. That they endured through the subsequent peace can be seen from the set issued by Boscawen in 1755 when he was sent across the Atlantic to intercept French reinforcements to Canada, even though war had not yet been declared. This set included thirteen of the fifteen articles of Hawke’s instructions (omitting only one about fireships and one about readiness for action), but the articles were not numbered and are interspersed among what would normally be classed as sailing instructions, aimed at finding the French squadron he had been sent to stop. It is of interest as tending to confirm Richmond’s surmise about the origin of the Hawke instructions that Boscawen had served under Anson in the spring of 1747 and had no doubt received instructions from him, but he had not been with Hawke in September. 1
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.005 |
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".