MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4241455090 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511791970

Report of the Lords of the Privy Council on Commerce and Navigation

2009· book· en· W4241455090 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Board of Trade

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)ProsperityLegislationState (computer science)Political scienceEconomyEconomic historyLawHistoryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Committee was commissioned to report on the state of trade between Britain and America after the United States Congress had passed legislation imposing duties and restrictions on imports in 1789. Merchants and ship owners in the major British ports and British consuls in America were sent questionnaires on the effects of such levies. The committee made its report in 1791, and began by summarising the situation since Britain had acknowledged American independence in 1783, and how independence had affected trade, including that involving slaves, between the two countries. The decline in British exports to the United States had been offset by exports to Canada and the West Indies. Overall, the balance of trade was in Britain's favour, but the continuing prosperity of the British West Indian colonies was seen as depending almost entirely on their slave-based economy, and abolition was therefore not believed to be an option.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.013

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→