MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W301163570 · doi:10.3138/cjh.38.3.395

From a <i>View to a Discovery</i>: Edmund Spenser, Sir John Davies, and the Defects of Law in the Realm of Ireland

2003· article· en· W301163570 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
D. Alan Orr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrishSovereigntyMajestyLawRealmColonialismNarrativeSkepticismSociologyReignState (computer science)Interpretation (philosophy)HistoryPhilosophyLiteraturePolitical scienceEpistemologyPoliticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is a comparative analysis of Edmund Spenser’s A View of the Present State of Ireland and Sir John Davies’ A’Discovery of the True Causes Why Ireland Was Never Entirely Subdued ... until the Beginning of His Majesty’s Happy Reign. Over the past two decades, Nicholas Canny has argued for the centrality of Spenser’s View to the British colonial enterprise in Ireland during the seventeenth century, suggesting that Davies’ Discovery adhered closely to the ideas of Spenser on Irish affairs. These ideas were marked by an unabashed advocacy of military and judicial violence and a deep scepticism as to the effectiveness of the English common law, its procedures and values, in the settling of Irish affairs. This article challenges the interpretation of Canny arguing alternatively that these two texts offer, not only rival views on the efficacy of the English law in Ireland as an agent of cultural change, but also competing narrative models for writing the history of early modern Ireland, one ethnological deriving from Spenser’s View and one sovereignty-centered deriving from Davies’ Discovery.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.034
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.008
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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