The Sinews of Habsburg Power: Lower Austria in a Fiscal-Military State 1650–1820
Bibliographic record
Abstract
William B. Godsey, a historian affiliated with the Institute for Modern and Contemporary Historical Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, has produced a detailed, archival source-based study of the Estates of Lower Austria in the period between the end of the Thirty Years’ War and the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Utilizing records from a dozen public and private archives in Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovenia (and in particular the Lower Austrian State Archive in St. Pölten, Austria), he argues for the continued importance of the Estates throughout the period, particularly in relation to financing the ever-increasing costs of the ever-enlarging army the Habsburgs enlisted to pursue their foreign policy aims and defend their hereditary holdings. In so doing, Godsey uses the justly famous Austrian source-based historical research method to overturn a couple of established truths: that the Estates represented a counter-balance to the state or crown, and that they became increasingly less significant as the centuries in question passed. To the contrary, Godsey contrasts the continued importance of the Lower Austrian Estates for financial purposes with their infamously unsuccessful French counterparts, arguing that far from being relegated to the sidelines, the Estates’ continued importance helps to explain how the Habsburgs managed to weather repeated crises and invasions, emerging ever stronger. As he writes, ‘The monarchy exhibited at all events remarkable resiliency’ (p. 360). Godsey attributes this resiliency in large part to its ability to cooperate with the local landed elites and benefit from their access to credit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".