MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W258267090 · doi:10.3138/cjh.41.3.461

Parliament Intends “To Take Away the King’s Life”: Print and the Decision to Execute Charles I

2006· article· en· W258267090 on OpenAlex
Amos Tubb

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies of British Isles
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentRoyalistLawPoliticsHouse of CommonsSpanish Civil WarPower (physics)BuckinghamPolitical scienceSociologyHistoryMedia studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historians are currently debating whether or not leading members of the New Model Army and Parliament decided to execute King Charles I in late December 1648 or in late January 1649. In order to comprehend how contemporaries viewed this process, this essay explores the discussions about Charles’s fate that occurred in the vibrant print culture thriving in England during the late 1640s. It argues that over the last week of December and the first two weeks of January members of every political faction announced in print that the government planned to judicially execute the king. Thus, while some leaders of the army and Parliament may have been uncertain in their own minds whether they would eliminate the king through the end of the month, it appears that, in the public discourse, the king’s fate was sealed even before his trial began on 20 January 1649.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.181 · 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