De vergadering van de Staten-Generaal in de Republiek voor 1795 en de publiciteit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Assembly of the States-General in the Dutch Republic before 1795 and the information that it released to the general publicThis paper examines the transparency of the meetings of the Dutch States-General during the early modern period. These meetings were held behind closed doors and were only accessible to the political elite. Despite this, some information did leak out to the citizens of the Republic. The key question is which procedures and rites did the general public know about and which aspects of the meetings remained obscure. Following the description of an incident in 1787, in which a fight almost broke out between two deputies — something that was almost unheard of in the history of the States-General — a number of familiar aspects are discussed, such as the frequency of the meetings, the number of deputies present, their agenda and conference table, and the customs that were followed when receiving foreign guests. The paper goes on to discuss some other aspects of the confidential nature of the States-General’s meetings, such as the obligation to secrecy. This confidentiality resulted in an aloof press that only reported harmless facts together with information that was deemedimportant for the prestige of the political elite. This article is part of the special issue 'Parlementen in de Nederlanden'.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".