MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409647486 · doi:10.1080/07292473.2025.2493449

Complaints and care for maritime prisoners of war in England during the Nine Years War, 1689–97

2025· article· en· W4409647486 on OpenAlex
Matthew Neufeld

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWar & Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrisoners of warHistoryAncient historyWorld War IIPsychologyMedicineArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historians of maritime prisoners of war during the long eighteenth-century have pointed out that exchanges of captive seamen were primarily concerned with the strategic balance of maritime manpower. Even complaints of mistreatment and poor conditions were put to use during negotiations for prisoner exchanges. During the 1690s, allegations of abuse and ill treatment of enemy prisoners could be mobilised not only with a view to naval manpower but also to lower the risk of harm to one’s own forces. A case of alleged corruption against the English commission for exchanging prisoners of war, and the commissioners’ own correspondence, shows that reports of actual and potential mistreatment of French naval prisoners in England could also be directed internally in efforts to prevent similar or worse treatment of English prisoners in France.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it