Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Fishery on the Banks of Newfoundland, and the other Banks, and all the others in America, was the undoubted right of Great Britain. Therefore we might dispose of them as we pleased. On February 10, 1775, Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer Frederick North “moved for leave” in Parliament to introduce “a Bill for putting the trade of America with England, Ireland, and the West Indies under temporary restrictions, and for restraining the refractory provinces from fishing on the banks of Newfoundland.” Dissenting heads of the British state who were among the first to read copies of the bill were very concerned. In the House of Commons, Sir John Griffin “after expressing his sincere wishes to see a happy conclusion put to the American disputes without bloodshed, declared, that upon reading the Bill, he felt himself alarmed, and was jealous that, if the greatest caution and delicacy was not to be used in perfecting the Bill, it would rather provoke than effect any good purpose.” When the bill made it to the House of Lords, peers such as Charles Prat, Earl of Camden, a Whig and the judge who acquitted John Wilkes, compared the Bill to other Parliamentary legislation aimed at America. Lord Camden found that other laws were “by no means so violent in their operations as this.” He believed that the bill “was at once declaring war [against the colonies], and beginning hostilities in Great Britain [i.e. the British 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.025 |
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".