Ideal commonwealths and settler colonies: Oceana in Harrington, Adams and Froude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), written by the English political thinker James Harrington (1611–1677), is a treatise innovative not only for its complex exposition on the domestic constitution of England, but also for its conscious engagement of the foreign empire upon which such a constitution was premised. While the existing literature on Harrington has made much meaning of his precepts on the commonwealth at home, there is less interest in the imperial commonwealth. An examination of John Adams’s seventh letter of Novanglus (1775) and 29th letter of the Defence of the Constitutions (1787), and James Anthony Froude’s Oceana: Or England and Her Colonies (1886), reveals that both the domestic and foreign commonwealth interested American and English readers. Adams (1735–1826), Second President of the United States, borrowed Oceana to critique the balance of dominion between the British metropole and the American settler colonies. Froude (1818–1894), an English historian and observer of empire and colonial matters, appropriated Oceana to advocate for a commonwealth founded upon closer ties between England and her settler colonies in South Africa, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The cases of Adams and Froude demonstrate that more can be done to understand Oceana as an imperial text.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".