No Longer the Farmers’ Friend? The Conservative Party and Agricultural Protection, 1880–1914
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the nineteenth century the Conservative Party was frequently and justifiably referred to as the ‘farmer’s friend’. Eighteenth-century Tories had been proud of their ‘country’ politics, and their early nineteenth-century successors introduced and for 30 years defended those most obvious symbols of government support for the farming community, the Corn Laws. Sir Robert Peel’s conversion to free trade in 1846 was seen by the bulk of his party as a betrayal of the Conservative Party’s traditions, interests and ethos. In many respects Peel’s apostasy in 1846 only served to strengthen the Conservative Party’s identification with the farming community and vice versa. As a consequence the Victorian Conservative Party remained above all else the political arm of the landed interest – drawing its leadership from the aristocracy, its parliamentary cohorts from the county squirearchy, and finding its most rock solid electoral support in the English counties. But in the last quarter of the century doubts arose as to whether the relationship between the Conservatives and the farming community either would or could continue to be mutually satisfactory. The problems posed by the agricultural depression of the last quarter of the century, and a resurgence of protectionist opinion in farming circles, placed severe strains upon what had once seemed a natural and unbreakable alliance. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".