MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250886976 · doi:10.3138/utq.77.3.876

Milton and the Pursuit of Happiness

2008· article· en· W4250886976 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Catherine Gimelli Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican Literature and Humor Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOne Mind
KeywordsHappinessDeclaration of independenceVirtueAssertionJeffersonian democracyPolityPhilosophyRelation (database)MonarchyConscienceParadiseEpistemologyLawTheologyPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jefferson's Declaration of Independence famously claims as a self-evident truth that all men are endowed with the right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ Analysis of Jefferson's familiarity with Milton's writings suggests that the distinctively American and emphatically secular right to the pursuit of happiness might be indebted, somewhat surprisingly, to England's Godly poet. Jefferson found in Milton's writings not only the assertion that republics enjoy far greater happiness than monarchies, but also a concept of happiness derived from classical republicanism and Baconian science. Defining happiness in terms of civic virtue and progress, Milton fused private and public interests in such a way that enabled Jefferson to articulate a new conception of polity, one that would be self-determining and require active participation, freed from the traditional orientation to the past and open to the possibilities of the future. Somewhat paradoxically, much of the strongest evidence for this relation lies in the way Mark Twain rejected Jeffersonian optimism by satirizing Paradise Lost.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

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 studies0.0070.020
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.155 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicAmerican Literature and Humor StudiesFrench-language works237,207