Forts versus ships : also Defense of Canadian lakes and its influence on the general defence of Canada, /c by an Officer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The account of the fight between the " Merri- mac" and u Monitor/' and its results, threw England into a state of monomania.Ships with armour could g-o any where, and do anything-; as to forts, they were of no account.In deference to the ge- neral feeling-, Ministers reassembled the DefenceCommission to take further evidence, with a view to determine whether it mig-ht not be expedient to sus- pend the construction of the costly permanent forts, which were intended to serve as advanced posts for the protection of our harbours and dockyards.A few days later it was announced in the House of Commons and in all the newspapers that the tables had been completely turned, and that the results of an experiment at Shoeburyness had tri- umphantly and conclusively restored the ancient superiority of g-uns over the sides of floating-struc- tures.Several shots (156-pounders) fired out of the Armstrong" 12-ton gun, with a charge of 50 lbs. of powder, had gone through the target representing a section of the " Warrior's" side as if it had been paper ; with such force indeed that the Secretary of the Admiralty said it would probably have gone through the other side of the ship also.Forts were again in the ascendant, and nothing could withstand them.The Defence Commission adhered to its first opinion, and the building of the forts, suspended for a time, was to be at once resumed.News of the engagement at New Orleans next arrived to turn the vane of opinion round once more.This time ships-and it was confidently as- serted wooden ships-had successfully engaged forts, and forced the obstructions, which had been deliberately prepared in a river, under the fire of the batteries.While men's minds were thus unsettled, it was revealed to the public that the trial at Shoeburyness above referred to, which was supposed to have resulted in the decisive triumph of the Armstrong gun, had received a very false colouring.The fact was, as stated,thatthe target had one of its plates perforated by the first shot, fired from the distance of 200 yards with 4') pounds of powder ; but it w T as not stated that this plate had been much shaken in a former trial, having been struck almost on the same spot by eleven successive shots, of which three were solid 200-pounders, three solid 100-pounders,
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".