Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within six months after Americans first heard Paine's clarion call for separation from the British Empire, the entire political landscape of the colonies transformed dramatically. In the Declaration of Independence in July 1776, the representatives of the colonies assembled in the Continental Congress announced the formal severance of their connection with Britain. It was an event many American Whigs still considered unlikely when Jefferson made his appeal for radical imperial reform in 1774 and almost unthinkable when Otis and Dickinson protested parliamentary duties and taxes in the 1760s. However, the rhetoric and logic of the Declaration of Independence, saturated as it was with radical Whig principles of popular sovereignty, essentially represented an extension of arguments drawn from the radical Whig philosophy that had supplied the theoretical foundations of the American Whig position from the very beginning of the imperial crisis with Britain. The Declaration of Independence was in many respects a classic expression of radical Whig philosophy. In contrast to the conservative formulation of the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, which accused James II of violating the “knowne lawes and statutes” and the “antient rights and liberties” of the English nation, the American Declaration of 1776 reached conclusions and pronounced principles of rights and government that had proven to be politically unpopular and theoretically unpersuasive to their English Whig forbears. It clearly identified an unexhaustive list of “certain unalienable rights” and boldly asserted a universal right of popular revolution.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".