MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Historiography of the English State during ‘the Long Eighteenth Century’: Part I – Decentralized Perspectives

2009· article· en· W2084337801 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Devereaux

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory Compass · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersState Government of Victoria
KeywordsHistoriographyExpansiveState (computer science)PoliticsHistoryWork (physics)State formationSociologyPolitical economyAestheticsPolitical scienceLawEngineeringArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article reviews the four most prominent themes in the historiography of the modern English state during the last six decades, with a particular focus on ‘the long eighteenth century’ (1660–1837). The first is the vision of an expansive and centralized administrative state in Victorian England most famously set forth in the work of the late Oliver MacDonagh. Second is the notion of the state as an information‐gathering entity that has recently been forcefully stated by Edward Higgs. Third is the vision of an unexpectedly powerful, substantially centralized ‘fiscal‐military’ state during the eighteenth century, powerfully evoked in the work of John Brewer. Finally, a brief overview is given of the prodigious historical literature that has arisen in recent years surrounding the notion of the state as abstract entity capable of commanding the loyalties of those people over whom it rules. The article concludes by suggesting how a more fully integrated vision of the English state in history might be achieved through a deeper, more dynamic interrelation of changing political‐administrative structures and shifting social‐cultural forces.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistory CompassSame topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207