Melvin Edelstein. <i>The French Revolution and the Birth of Electoral Democracy</i> .
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Melvin Edelstein’s The French Revolution and the Birth of Electoral Democracy is an earnest and extremely meticulous analysis of electoral practices in the French Revolution and their implications for the broader question of democratic political apprenticeship. Writing in a direct, persuasive, and readable style, Edelstein argues that despite uneven participation, revolutionary elections constituted an unprecedented political experience for millions of Frenchmen who either voted at the polls or stood for office. Such a positive affirmation of the impact of elections on revolutionary France directly challenges Patrice Gueniffey’s more cynical assessment in Le nombre et la Raison: La Révolution française et les élections (1993), with which Edelstein engages in a sustained manner throughout the book. This is the culmination of decades of research, particularly in provincial archives: Edelstein gathered electoral data from nearly every one of the original eighty-three departments (compared with a sample size of approximately fifteen to twenty in other studies) which, combined with other sources and a deep knowledge of the secondary literature, has produced an extremely thorough study.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".