MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W285228699

The Nature and Development of Liberal Protestantism in Waterford 1800-42

2008· dissertation· en· W285228699 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elizabeth Anne Heggs

Bibliographic record

VenueArrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIrish Research CouncilQueen's UniversityIrish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences
KeywordsProtestantismIrishRepealPoliticsLiberalismElitePolitical scienceLiberal PartyTheme (computing)IndictmentLawReligious studiesPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines the development of liberal Protestantism in Waterford between 1800
\nand 1842. Waterford liberal Protestants had much in common with their British Whig
\ncounterparts, but their ideology had been fundamentally altered by the experience of the
\nlate eighteenth century. This thesis focuses on the development of liberalism among the
\nProtestant political élite at local level, examining in particular the liberal values among a
\nsection of Waterford Corporation and Waterford Chamber of Commerce. The
\nparliamentary activities of Waterford’s Whig representatives are an important theme, and
\nthe peculiarly Irish Whiggism of Sir John Newport, an important parliamentary figure in
\nthis period, is examined. The most important and defining feature of Irish liberal
\nProtestantism in these years was their support for the removal of political disabilities
\naffecting Irish Catholics. There was a strong tradition of support among Waterford
\nProtestants for Catholic relief, and this support grew in the early decades of the nineteenth
\ncentury, despite the friction caused by the question of ‘securities’. This support endured
\ninto the 1820s, and liberal Protestants played an indispensable role in the famous 1826
\nelection in County Waterford.
\nDespite this, some Waterford liberal Protestants were wary of what they perceived
\nas O’Connell’s demagogic strategies for advancing the Catholic question, and felt
\nmarginalised when the political impetus passed into Catholic hands after 1828. Few
\nsupported the campaign for a repeal of the union in the 1830s, which left them with few
\nallies on the Catholic side, save for those Catholics who resisted O’Connell’s call for
\nrepeal. This greatly reduced the prospects for a non-confessional approach to politics. The
\n1830s was a difficult decade for Irish liberal Protestants, and this thesis examines the
\nresponses of Waterford liberal Protestants to challenges posed by Catholic and
\npariiamentaiy politics in this decade. Liberal Protestants in Waterford responded to these
\nchallenges in a variety of ways, with some maintaining close relations with Irish Catholics
\nand others moving into a closer alliance with a revitalised Irish Toryism, and others
\nretreated from the political scene.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology)Same topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207