Printing Oliver Cromwell's Speeches: The Making of a Split Personality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oliver Cromwell's speeches are used frequently by historians of the interregnum, yet all current printed editions of the speeches have significant problems. They fail to consider the variations in different versions of each of the speeches and they consequently ignore the complexity of the sources. Each speech exists in more than one early version and each source has a provenance which is often difficult to determine. Additionally, no two versions of the same speech are identical, as each version has its own unique variations. These small variations in the wording have the potential to alter the meaning. This article looks in detail at these issues in relation to Cromwell's kingship speeches of 1657; some versions portray him as a conservative gentleman who ruled similarly to a king, while others present him as a religious fanatic who sympathised with the religious sects. Such differences can often be attributed to the personal beliefs of particular authors. As a result of the variations in the sources, the historian's interpretation of Cromwell is necessarily affected by which source he or she uses for Cromwell's speeches. Cromwell's speeches are an important source, but if historians hope to make use of them, they must acknowledge the complexities of the original sources.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".