MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226215091 · doi:10.18254/s207987840018873-9

English Monarchy of the Early Enlightenment through the Eyes of Contemporaries

2022· article· en· W4226215091 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIstoriya · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonarchyConstitutional monarchyParliamentEnlightenmentState (computer science)DemocracyStyle (visual arts)Power (physics)IdeologyLawSocial contractBalance (ability)Absolute monarchyPolitical scienceSociologyClassicsHistoryLiteraturePoliticsArtPhilosophyTheologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article analyzes the views of the English enlighteners (J. Locke, D. Defoe, R. Style, J. Swift, Bolingbroke, marquis of Halifax, W. Temple) on the constitutional monarchy established during their lifetime. Direct participation in the work of state institutions (Parliament), close acquaintance with the chief Ministers of the Kingdom, writing articles on their behalf — all this contributed to the formulation of the main concepts that form the basis of the liberal model of democracy. This model included, first of all, the theories of “social contract”, “division and balance” of the branches of power, which the enlighteners discussed in their works. It seems that it was the establishment of a constitutional monarchy after the Glorious Revolution of 1688—1689, whose staunch supporters were English intellectuals, that gave rise to the development of such theories.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.248 · 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