MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791462401 · doi:10.1093/ereh/hex018

“I Intend Therefore to Prorogue”: the effects of political conflict and the Glorious Revolution in parliament, 1660–1702

2017· article· en· W2791462401 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kara Dimitruk

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Review of Economic History · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, IrvineUniversity of California, DavisCalifornia Institute of TechnologyQueen's University BelfastQueen's UniversityUniversity of Warwick
KeywordsParliamentPoliticsLegislationLegislatureEstateProperty rightsReal estateEconomicsRevenueLawPolitical economyPolitical scienceLaw and economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides evidence that the Glorious Revolution removed political barriers to changing property rights in seventeenth century England. I study parliament's passage of estate bills, a legislation that broke restrictions on land use and made up most of parliament's legislative output from to . Using a new dataset on estate bills, I first document that the sudden closure (prorogation) of parliament by the monarch caused bills to fail. Probit and OLS estimates show estate bills were percentage points more likely to fail in these sessions. Second, I show conflict delaying revenue bills and conflict with the monarch's interests made sudden prorogations more likely before the Glorious Revolution. Political and constitutional changes with the Glorious Revolution were thus important for England's economic development. They improved parliament's provision of legislation that made property rights more flexible to changing economic opportunities throughout the preindustrial era.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.208 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Review of Economic HistorySame topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207