MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317973034 · doi:10.1177/0843871416630268

Neither private contractors nor productive partners: The English fiscal-naval state and London hospitals, 1660–1715

2016· article· en· W2317973034 on OpenAlex
Matthew Neufeld

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Maritime History · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNavyGeneral partnershipState (computer science)Work (physics)Private practicePublic administrationManagementPolitical sciencePublic relationsEconomic historyLawMedicineEngineeringHistoryFamily medicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relations between the Royal Navy and London’s great hospitals during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries concerning the care of sick and injured sailors were complicated, fraught and at times riven with conflict. This article surveys the relationship during the late Stuart era between the fiscal-naval state and the hospitals – semi-private institutions with a public mission – and attempts to re-evaluate the usefulness of the concept of partnership for understanding public and private interactions during wartime. The article contends that the state and the hospitals did not form a productive partnership because London’s hospitals were obliged to work for the navy in ways that compromised the hospitals’ ability to serve their core public.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.195 · 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