The Loyalist regiments of the American Revolutionary War 1775-1783
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation is about the Loyalist Regiments of the American Revolution, 1775-1783. These were the formal regiments formed by the British, consisting of Americans who stayed Loyal to the British crown during the American Revolutionary War. They fought in most of the main campaigns of this war and in 1783 left with the British Army for Canada, where many of them settled. The Loyalist regiments have been neglected by academic historians with only one major work on them as a group. The intention of this dissertation is to give them their proper place in the historiography of the American Revolutionary War and of eighteenth century military history. The dissertation is laid out in the following way. Chapter one, will be an overview of the history of Regiments, from their origins in Colonial days until 1783. It will assess how they were dealt with by the British and examine both organisation and combat. Chapter two is a thematic chapter looking principally at the organisation of the regiments as well as their motivation and composition. The next four chapters are case studies of three Loyalist regiments. Chapters three and four are a case study of the Queens Rangers. A database of all the soldiers who served in this regiment was created and is included with this dissertation. Chapter five is about the controversial regiment, the British Legion. Chapter 6 is a case study of the frontier regiment Butler‘s Rangers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".