Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mandeville's commitment to a developmental perspective on the “anatomy of the human frame” had immediate consequences. Most important was the realization during the 1720s that his initial understanding of contemporary European civility and opulence depended for its force not only upon the naturalistic analysis of sociability for which he first became notorious but upon an historically plausible reconstruction of the progress of pride as the human race matured from its primitive beginnings over the course of social time. All forms of social life, Mandeville had claimed in The Fable 's Preface of 1723, were in fact nothing more than various structures within which the “symptoms” and “symbols” of instinct were politically regulated in the interests of peace and security. But this challenge to morally grounded conceptions of society was exceptionally difficult to argue convincingly in the absence of an evolutionary consideration of morals and justice; the more difficult since, by Mandeville's own testimony, “all the symbols of [pride] are not easily discovered; they are manifold and vary according to age, humour, circumstances, and often constitution, of the people” (1, 138). Having adopted that aggressively evolutionary stance which characterized his writing in the wake of The Fable 's stormy reception after 1723, Mandeville explored this problem for the ten remaining years of his working life.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".