Challenging the Historical Paradigm: Tories, Whigs, and Economic Writing, 1680–1714
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay challenges the paradigm that depicts Whigs as progressive champions of free-market economics doing battle against the land-based and regressive economic policies of the Tories. Particularly in the period after the Glorious Revolution, Tory economic writers such as Charles Davenant, Nicholas Barbon, and Sir Dudley North argued for free trade and the relaxation of government tariffs, particularly as exercised against luxuries imported by the East India Company. Whig economic writers such as John Locke, John Pollexfen, Sir Francis Brewster, and John Cary continued, on the contrary, to equate wealth with the accumulation of bullion, arguing that England must curtail the import of luxuries in order to protect domestic manufacture. This debate reached its climax during the controversy over the commercial pact attached to the Treaty of Utrecht (1713). Tories argued for free trade in their journal the Mercantor while Whigs continued to urge for protection against imports in the British Merchant. A revised understanding of the economic policies of Tories and Whigs should lead to a reinterpretation of poems such as Alexander Pope's Windsor-Forest (1713) as well as to a reconsideration of the economic debate between Whigs and Tories after 1714.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".