MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2493148075 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511496653.013

Conclusion: Revolutionary tradition

2003· book-chapter· en· W2493148075 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Alexander

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2003
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEuropean Political History Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two waves of crisis lashed the Second Restoration. The first began with Decazes's decision to alter the Lainé Law in late 1819, and culminated in the arrival of ultraroyalist rule under Villèle in December 1821. The second began with Villèele's decision in October 1827 to call a general election, and culminated in the Revolution of 1830. The first crisis thus fostered executive despotism; the second led to the triumph of parliamentary government. Crucial to such differing results was the role of the Centre-Right. Under Richelieu in 1820, the Centre-Right allied with the Right and the consequence was a shrewd combination of gradualist counter-revolution and administrative despotism. Confronted by Polignac in 1829, the Centre-Right aligned with the Liberal Opposition, and the consequence was success for the Liberal argument that the Charter was a contract between king and nation. If one asks why the Centre-Right acted so differently, the answer lies less in the Liberal message than in Liberal means. The content of Liberal appeal remained largely consistent during the Restoration, but after 1823 association with insurrection was abandoned. Proposals for change could be well received by both the electorate and the general public, but they had to be put forward by legal reform, not threats of violent upheaval.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0690.009

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.142 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicEuropean Political History AnalysisFrench-language works237,207