MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126941494 · doi:10.1017/s0008423907070278

Nature and History in American Political Development: A Debate

2007· article· en· W2126941494 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Science Research and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRebuttalPoliticsArgument (complex analysis)Politics of the United StatesPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsPhilosophyEpistemologyLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nature and History in American Political Development: A Debate , James W. Ceaser; with responses from Jack N. Rakove, Nancy L. Rosenblum, Rogers M. Smith, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2006, pp. viii, 197. James Ceaser gave the first Tocqueville Memorial Lecture on American Politics sponsored by the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard in 2004. This volume contains an expanded version of his lecture, the three responses by, respectively, a historian, a political theorist, and a political scientist, and Ceaser's rejoinder or, in the case of Rosenblum, rebuttal to each. There are two things going on in this volume: a scholarly debate on how to approach the elusive question of the role of ideas in politics and a rather acrimonious argument over Ceaser's motivation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.333 · 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