What We Have Learned: A Retrospective on Parks Canada War of 1812 Military Sites Archaeology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past five decades, Parks Canada archaeology has advanced the understanding of War of 1812 sites in Ontario. Delineation of the original 1796 traces at Fort George and Fort Malden provide enhanced appreciation of their transformation from defensible supply stations to works of greater strength. Investigations at Forts Mississauga, Henry, and Wellington illustrate how British Royal Engineers rethought defense, varying designs as the war progressed. Fort Wellington also demonstrates British engineers willingness to stray from Vauban-influenced systems by adopting the bastion-less trace in their later works. Excavations at Fort George illustrate American use of entrenchments as an expedient means of perimeter defense. In addition to site design, alterations, and future archaeological potential, excavations also reveal insights about occupation and activities: from raucous dinner parties to evocative caches of flints and buttons. In hindsight, the usefulness of employing a long-term/small-scale cultural resource management approach to Ontario military sites archaeology is briefly evaluated along with recommendations for future study.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".