MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

From the Cleveland Commission to the Statutes of 1882

2000· book-chapter· en· W2483390154 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher Harvie

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2000
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFellGeorge (robot)StatuteCommissionPoliticsMinor (academic)Quarter (Canadian coin)LawPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)HistoryPublic administrationEconomic historyArt historyArchaeologyCartographyPhilosophyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the passing of the Universities Tests Act of 1871, William Gladstone’s involvement in the politics of Oxford University diminished. Attempts by dons, Liberal and Conservative alike, to involve him in the outcome of the Royal Commission into university and college finances, which he had set up in October of that year under the Duke of Cleveland, awoke little response. Demitting the Liberal leadership on January 13, 1875, almost a year after his government fell on February 17, 1874, Gladstone became preoccupied with his Homeric studies; further stimulated by Heinrich Schliemann’s excavations in Asia Minor, he issued the results of his researches throughout 1876 in the Contemporary Review. Shortly, more urgent news from that quarter was to reactivate his political energies in the Eastern Question agitation. Although he intervened in the Oxford and Cambridge Bill debates in 1877, speaking in favour of George Goschen’s amendment to remove clerical restrictions on fellowships — this was narrowly lost, 138 to 147 — the fate of Oxford was now marginal to his interests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.004

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→