MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942709556 · doi:10.1093/dh/dhz018

If Radicals Ruled the World

2019· article· en· W2942709556 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eliga H. Gould

Bibliographic record

VenueDiplomatic History · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyDemocracyConstitutionLawPolitical scienceHistoryPoliticsReligious studiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To grasp the argument of Jonathan Israel’s sprawling new book, one hardly needs to read past the title page. Between 1775 and 1848, Americans set the world ablaze, igniting parallel revolutions in Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Poland, Cape Town, Haiti, Greece, Venezuela, Argentina, and, eventually, the rest of Spanish America. They did this, Israel maintains, by taking the radical and moderate strands of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment and transforming them into the novel ideology of republicanism. The first people to make this intellectual leap, though hardly the last, Americans created “a new ground-plan for human society,” one that inspired radicals even as it repelled conservatives (8). Although its influence ebbed and flowed, the American Revolution became the “global model” for would-be revolutionaries everywhere (485). Americans occupied this exalted position because the republicanism that they created was in Israel’s telling not one ideology but two. The first was the democratic republicanism of Tom Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and, until he abandoned his radical principles after the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson. Taking their cue from the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776, with its unicameral legislature and universal male adult franchise, democratic republicans opposed slavery, they defended freedom of speech, most favored separation of church and state, some advocated for greater equality between men and women, and a few supported steps to protect the rights of Native Americans and other indigenous peoples. Arrayed against them was the aristocratic republicanism of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington. Aristocratic republicans were the moderates of the American Revolution. They believed in “mixed government” that would check the worst excesses of the people. They also tended to favor religious establishments, property-based voting qualifications, and protecting the rights of slave owners. The most important exemplar of moderate republicanism was the Federal Constitution of 1787, which had a quasi-monarchical executive, a judiciary whose justices served for life, and a bicameral legislature, the upper chamber of which its Federalist authors envisioned as an aristocratic counterweight to the democratic House of Representatives. It was radicals who gave the American Revolution its global appeal. Ultimately, though, moderates determined how the revolution’s ideals would be put into practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.023
Scholarly communication0.0130.015
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.006

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiplomatic HistorySame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207