Bibliographic record
Abstract
“The discovery of an India” could do more, for better or worse, than anything else for the English people, wrote Captain Edward Wynne to his king, Charles I, in 1623. The world did not have one India, it had many awaiting English discovery. Wynne explained that the “low-Countrymen,” meaning the Dutch, “have made the Sea their India; and by that sole waie of Fishing, have raised themselves to such an unweildlie Treasure.” The Dutch had found their India near Newfoundland. Wynne was sure that Newfoundland itself would be England’s India. It was more southerly than England, and it had, he claimed, mild winters with rare snows. Its potential wealth most made Newfoundland an India. Still, that wealth could be risky. The newfound wealth of the Dutch, he wrote, might lead to “lazyness, the readie waie to povertie.” But the benefits were worth such a risk. Wynne explained that, through territory in America, Charles I’s harbors would fill with ships and merchants, and “their houses with outlandish Commodities.” The king’s “Dominions” would gain “infinite wealth,” and he would gain great “coffers” of “Treasure.” For Wynne and other imperial thinkers and adventurers in Elizabethan and early Stuart England, India was a set of variable and sometimes competing ideas about wealth, trade, wondrous commodities, and potential corruption, more than it was a place. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, however, Britons came to see India much more as the subcontinent of Asia—a place of cultivation, manufacturing, conquest, and potential religious allies and converts—than as a set of transferable ideas. America the India and India the place might have many of the same potential benefits and dangers in common.1
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.815 | 0.679 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".