MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2960814720 · doi:10.1080/14788810.2018.1539594

From a cosmopolitan fraternity to a loyalist institution: Freemasonry in British North America in the 1780s–1790s

2019· article· en· W2960814720 on OpenAlexaff
Bonnie Huskins

Bibliographic record

VenueAtlantic Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAmerican History and Culture
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraternityPoliticsInstitutionHistorySAINTPolitical radicalismMilitarismColonialismAncient historyLawPolitical scienceArt historyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

British Freemasons accommodated the revolutionary politics of the eighteenth-century Atlantic world until the 1790s, when the British waged war against revolutionary France and suppressed internal radicalism and associations they defined as seditious. British Grand Lodges reoriented to overt displays of loyalty, such as adopting royal patrons, and consolidating their authority over Freemasonry. This transformation from an elastic and cosmopolitan fraternity to a loyalist institution was highly embattled. This essay examines this shift within “Hiram Lodge No. 17” in Saint John, New Brunswick. Lodge members became embroiled in political conflicts in the colony’s first election in 1785. A decade later, members sparred with Masonic officialdom, after Nova Scotia’s provincial grand lodge adopted the anti-revolutionary turn of British Grand Lodges. It clamped down on fractious lodges, including Hiram Lodge, a case demonstrating the complex relationship between fraternal organizations and the dynamic political culture of the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Atlantic world.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 venueAtlantic StudiesSame topicAmerican History and CultureFrench-language works237,207