Bibliographic record
Abstract
The politics of empire and conquest were among Burke’s most intense and abiding preoccupations throughout his life as a writer and legislator. He took up these themes in some of his earliest published writing, his contributions to An Account of the European Settlements in America , written with his friend William Burke and first published in 1757, and he continued to dwell on Indian and especially Irish affairs until his death. Burke’s career spanned a period widely seen at the time, as well as by later historians, as one of imperial crisis. Before entering parliament, Burke returned to his native Dublin in the early 1760s as an aide to William Hamilton, chief secretary in Ireland, during the early phase of the Whiteboy disturbances, when Protestant landlords and the Irish government were savagely suppressing Catholic peasant unrest with reprisals, mass arrests, and judicial murders. By the end of the Seven Years’ War in 1763, Britain had acquired substantial new territories, with diverse and seemingly alien populations, including Quebec, with its large population of French Catholics, and in India, after Robert Clive’s decisive defeat of French ambitions there. British efforts under the Grenville ministry to recoup the costs of the war in America, most infamously through the 1765 Stamp Act, opened the breach with the American colonies that Burke struggled in vain to repair with his policy of conciliation. The crisis in the American colonies dominated Burke’s early years as a member of parliament, especially after he began in 1774 to represent Bristol, the ‘second city in the British dominions’, and a trading city whose prosperity was bound up perhaps more than any other in Britain with colonial commerce. Soon after the break with America, Burke began his fourteen-year campaign to stem the corruption and despotism of the British East India Company, the work for which he claimed near the end of his life to value himself the most (WS, IX: 159).
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".