The Love-Hate Relationship with Experts in the Early Modern Atlantic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As England belatedly moved into Atlantic enterprises, novel expertise was required. England’s first ventures across the ocean were in the fishing trade in Newfoundland, and this was a field they knew well. More southern regions beckoned, however, because these were expected to yield rich commodities. As they were drawn to these new areas, English undertakers found that a range of new skills was required, and they had to turn to foreigners or English people with foreign experience to get the expertise they needed. Everything from navigating in unfamiliar waters to building fortifications to growing novel crops meant reliance on experts. Colonists and their backers in England recognized the need but they hated such reliance, particularly because they often suspected that the so-called experts were bogus. Colonists believed that the experts—even when their skills were genuine—distorted life in the settlements by their demands and their focus. Part of the reason experts were distrusted was that their experiences gave them a cosmopolitan outlook, including sometimes a capacity to understand outsiders’ viewpoints. One goal of all early colonies was to achieve sufficient competence that they could eliminate the experts and manage their own enterprises.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it