The Radical Critique of "Old Corruption" and the Beginnings of Public Service Reform in Late Eighteenth-Century Scotland: The Edinburgh Sasine Office as a Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although in recent years historians have redirected attention to the questions of patronage and influence in eighteenth-century Britain - some examining patronage as "corruption", others viewing it in terms of parliamentary government and political parties, and yet others beginning to study its sociological ramifications - some problems still remain relatively unexplored. For example, why did so many radicals persist in focussing their critiques on "Old Corruption", even as late as the 1830s, when, according to some Marxist historians, "objectively" they ought to have been generating class-conscious critical theory? Obviously the sheer longevity of patronage society, which extended far into the nineteenth century, must be part of the answer. Nevertheless, very little is known of how and in what ways people outside the charmed circle of patronage responded to its presence and influence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".