Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sovereignty—or to use the Latin term, imperium—refers to the independent power of a monarch or nation against all other earthly authorities. By 1500, when expansion into the Atlantic began, this form of independence had been established by most European monarchs, who previously were considered to be under the authority of either the Holy Roman Emperor or the Roman Catholic Pope. A claim to sovereignty was used by the four principal European Atlantic powers—Britain, France, Portugal, and Spain—over and against three distinct bodies: (1) indigenous peoples, who were sometimes recognized as possessing a limited form of sovereignty (dominium), though rarely an absolute form; (2) subjects of the state claiming sovereignty, so that a legal, imperial, and constitutional relationship existed between the state and its colonies and subjects; and (3) monarchs and subjects of other states, so that a state’s claim to sovereignty would be recognized internationally. However, sovereignty was also a fluid concept at this time. Its definition—and therefore its application—was ambiguous, both in Europe and in the Atlantic, such that all claims to sovereignty and authority had a contingent nature to them. Closely associated with a claim to sovereignty were the transfer, creation, and exercise of law and legal institutions in the Atlantic world. These took on many forms (known as legal pluralisms) depending on the functions they were intended to serve. Different types of law and institutions dictated how sovereignty could be claimed and maintained, the political and constitutional structure of colonial entities, the handling of criminal (public) and civil (private) affairs, and the legal relationship between the Atlantic colonies and European crowns. Because of the vast amount of literature on this subject, this entry focuses on the temporal period circa 1500 to 1775, leaving the subject of the revolutionary Atlantic and the subsequent development of republican constitutions to more specialized entries.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".