MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996795983 · doi:10.7202/031105ar

Constructing the Citizen: The Primrose League and the Definition of Citizenship in the Age of Mass Democracy in Britain, 1918-1928

2006· article· en· W1996795983 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew Hendley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeagueCitizenshipPoliticsDemocracyPolitical scienceLawPublic administrationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Primrose League was a patriotic mass organisation nominally independent from, but allied to the British Conservative Party. During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, it politically mobilised large numbers of British women. In addition, through its social activities, the League assisted with the social integration of those holding full political rights with those who did not. The Fourth Reform Act of 1918 fundamentally altered the structure of British politics by tripling the size of the electorate and giving the vote to a significant number of British women for the first time. In this new political environment, Conservatives were concerned with countering the rising Labour Party and limiting the expectations of new voters. After 1918, the Primrose League attempted to define or construct a partisan model of citizenship. The League's model emphasised citizens' duties, individuals' civil rights and the idea of active citizenship. This campaign both helped the Conservative Party to adjust to the new political order and gave the Primrose League a new role to play in the age of mass democracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.039
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicPolitical and Economic history of UK and USFrench-language works237,207