Charles Townshend and Plans for British East Florida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost every historical account of the background of the American Revolution necessarily brings in the career of Charles Townshend.1 He introduced and guided through Parliament in 1767 the Townshend program of taxation for America. In so doing, Townshend reopened the dispute between the colonies and the mother country that had been moderated in the previous year by the repeal of the Stamp Act. For some years Townshend had been deeply concerned about colonial matters and was regarded as the expert on American affairs. 2 As a member of the Board of Trade, he had studied colonial problems. At the request of the Duke of Newcastle, first lord of the Treasury, he had prepared an evaluation in 1754 of the Halifax Plan of Union for America.3 Both of his brothers saw military service in North America during the French and Indian War.4 During the negotiations to end that war, Townshend was consulted by the king on the question of compensation for the return of Havana. Lord Bute, first lord of the Treasury, and the king believed that the cession of Florida by Spain would be adequate for the return of Cuba by England. Townshend thought otherwise, and he argued that Florida was not sufficient compensation and that Puerto Rico should be demanded from Spain as part of the peace settlement.5 Although Townshend expressed negative views about Florida, he did acknowledge that it had potential for development.6 As a result of the cession of Florida to Great Britain in the treaty of 1763, Townshend became deeply involved in plans for the settlement of this new province.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.006 |
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".