Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Most studies of Abraham Lincoln and the press focus on how American newspapers covered the sixteenth president of the United States. In this study, the author looks at how the international press covered Lincoln. Closest in proximity was the Canadian press, which tended to side with the Union but at the same time was not totally unsympathetic with the Confederacy because it saw the South as a countervailing influence on the growing U.S. military apparatus. Indeed, once the war ended, the Hamilton Spectator began to worry that the Americans might be more tempted to invade their neighbor to the north because it now possessed the strongest army and navy in the world. The British journalist William Howard Russell likewise had a somewhat complex view of the war. The Times of London correspondent found Lincoln to be more sophisticated than the country bumpkin stereotype that played fairly well in the London press. Russell sided with the Union, but he was somewhat smitten with the South in a social sense, as he observed the Confederates really did like the monarchy and aristocracy of Great Britain. In other countries, the key issue of Lincoln’s presidency was economics. The Indian press followed the international cotton trade and saw the Union blockade of the South as an opportunity to export more and more Indian cotton. Thus, Indian journals paid attention to the quality of the cotton crop, as well as British incentive programs to get Indian farmers to expand their production of the
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.012 |
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".