MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766704207 · doi:10.1093/ehr/cex345

Proxy Pasts: The Use of British Historical References in Spanish American Independence Rhetoric, 1808–1828

2017· article· en· W2766704207 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Racine

Bibliographic record

VenueThe English Historical Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)EmancipationPoliticsRhetoricNewspaperWar of independenceMonarchySpanish Civil WarHistoryLawEconomic historyPolitical scienceClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the independence era of the early nineteenth century, Spanish American patriot leaders hoped to find in Great Britain an ally not only in their fight for emancipation, but also in their efforts to become accepted into the family of nations. To do this, they not only cast their eyes across land and sea to study what contemporary Britain might offer as a political model, but they also ransacked the history books for material from its past. Although it is commonly assumed that the American and French Revolutions were the inspirations for Spanish American independence leaders, a strong case can be made for their attraction to the British model and historical experience. Their newspapers and congressional debates were filled with discussions of Magna Carta, the Tudors and Stuarts, the Armada, Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War, all of which were deployed with great skill to inform contemporary debates on matters such as religious tolerance, the jury system, the relative merits of republics versus monarchies, and the role of strong women in public life. The extensive use of British historical references reveals much about a political model that was attracting serious consideration during the Spanish American independence period.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe English Historical ReviewSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207