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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tatyana Labutina

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.

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)0.005
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

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

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIstoriyaSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207