Bibliographic record
Abstract
В статье рассматриваются два политических памфлета английского политика, писателя, ис-торика и коллекционера Х. Уолпола. Он не был выдающимся государственным деятелем или по-литическим мыслителем, однако оставил важные документы эпохи, в которых даётся характери-стика многим современникам (лорд Бьют, У. Питт-Старший, Г. Фокс, Дж. Гренвилль, лорд Галифакс, Ф. Дэшвуд, Э. Бёрк и многие другие). В силу этого немногочисленные политические памфлеты Х. Уолпола позволяют дать представление об объективности его оценок. The article examines two political pamphlets of the English politician, writer, historian and collector H. Walpole. H. Walpole was not an outstanding statesman or political thinker, but left important documents of his epoch, which characterize many contemporaries (Lord Bute, W. Pitt, G. Fox, J. Grenville, Lord Halifax, F. Dashwood, E. Burke and many others). Therefore the few political pamphlets of H. Walpole afford an opportunity to give an idea of the degree of objectivity of his assessments.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".