Restoring the Nation? Hamilton and the Politics of the National Covenant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although seen as a ‘Nobles’ Covenant’, the National Covenant was always overshadowed by issues surrounding the participation of the vulgar, or the common people, in the process. It was a situation in which social disorder was never far away, both for the Royalists and for the Covenanters. This issue and the wider concerns over law and order help us to understand more clearly the origins of the King’s Covenant and confirms that the King’s Covenant was not inspired by the Aberdeen Doctors but by the continuation of concerns over law and order. From the Covenanting perspective it is interesting to see how, at first, in order to legitimise their cause, they stepped away from the violence committed by their supporters and how, in the end, after being put in a legal corner by the Doctors, violence was justified on religious grounds. It is clear that the strength of the legal attack by the Doctors left the Covenanting leadership reeling and fearful of the King’s Covenant. Perhaps this allows us to see that the success of the Covenanting movement was due in part to Hamilton’s mistake over the Confession and the King’s Covenant was essentially a wasted opportunity to strike at the movement when it was on the defensive. Along with Sir Thomas Hope’s earlier statements, and the Covenanters success in dominating the General Assembly a few months later, the Covenanters were on an assured legal footing.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".