Expertise and Empire: Fortification Building and the English Ordnance Office, 1660-1714
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the integral role played by military engineers, and the state institution that deployed and oversaw them, in the making of the British Empire. The second half of the seventeenth century was a formative moment of English imperial expansion. As England accumulated a growing number of colonies and extended its claims farther into indigenous territories, the state simultaneously sought to centralize the empire’s administration from London. In this contradictory moment of expansion and consolidation, military engineering emerged as a means of imposing English power on distant and diverse colonial territories. To trace this history, the study focuses on a single government institution, the English Ordnance Office. Traditionally charged with the supply of arms for the army and navy, between 1660 and 1714, the Ordnance Office became the institutional center for fortification building both within England and throughout its empire, and it established and oversaw a cadre of engineers who managed building projects from Tangier to Ireland, Newfoundland to Jamaica. This profound transformation depended on complex negotiations among engineers, officials, and laborers with distinct fields of expertise, working across unfamiliar and unpredictable geographies far from the metropole. The dissertation toggles between England and its colonies to trace this growing, if tenuous, centralization of colonial fortification. Examining projects in North Africa, Ireland, North America, and the Caribbean, it reconstructs how the English state used engineer training, bureaucratic systems, visual representations, a global trade network, and the expertise of engineer-agents to weave together an engineering apparatus capable of defending—and constructing—an empire.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".