Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although he was a committed Whig and an ardent opponent of Stuart pretensions to arbitrary rule, Tyrrell's philosophical and constitutional position displays an abiding moderation. Moderate Whigs like Tyrrell did not advocate dramatic constitutional reform in England. He is careful to emphasize that a rejection of divine right absolutism does not amount to an endorsement of popular sovereignty or democracy. He openly professes his admiration for monarchy, calling it “that Government which tempered by known Laws, I take to be the best in the world.” Tyrrell distances himself from the radical parliamentary position in “the late unhappy times” of the English civil war, and even concedes that Filmer's arguments may have been defensible in the cause of preserving the “then Majesties lawful and just Rights” against the “domineering faction” that seized rule and the “divers levelling notions then too much in fashion.” Tyrrell suggests that Filmer's extreme arguments were a typical feature of a turbulent time. He presents his own moderate Whig argument as a mean between the two extremes of lawlessness reflected in the Scylla and Charibdes represented by divine right absolutism and unchecked parliamentary democracy. As a defender of “Government establisht by law,” Tyrrell pits himself against the common desire of both divine rightists and extreme parliamentarians “to alter that Government, and give up those Privileges which their Ancestors were so careful to preserve and deliver down to Posterity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".