MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4281556258 · doi:10.1017/9781787448162.012

Confederal Union and Empire: Placing the Albany Plan (1754) in Imperial Context

2022· other· en· W4281556258 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven M. Pincus

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpireContext (archaeology)Plan (archaeology)Political scienceEconomic historyPolitical economyGeographyHistorySociologyArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the course of a remarkably creative and productive career, Allan Macinnes offers one of his most provocative and stimulating insights in the last pages of his Union and Empire . In reflecting on the Anglo-Scottish Union of 1707, Macinnes observes that ‘the fortunes of the Union have been umbilically linked to the Empire’. Consequently, ‘as the British Empire has declined in the twentieth century, Union has moved from a constitutional fixture to a constitutional option, particularly within the context of a European Community that continues to expand at the outset of the twenty-first century’. Macinnes correctly highlights the bet that some Scots made on the benefits of empire in their political calculations. If union was attractive to some Scots because of the benefits of empire, then Scotland, after decolonisation, might well now choose the European Union rather than the United Kingdom. Inspired by Macinnes, I want to shift, in this essay, away from the focus on the benefits of incorporating union to examining a moment in which empire was reimagined as confederation, a moment in which confederation was preferred by a range of politicians to the 1707 model of incorporation. Scottish proposals for a confederal union, rather than an incorporating one, did not receive a full hearing in the first decade of the eighteenth century. But the idea of a confederal empire did not simply disappear. This imperial strategy re-emerged with a vengeance in the middle of the eighteenth century. This time the notion of a confederal empire received a full and fair hearing. Had history played out somewhat differently in the summer and autumn of 1754, the British government might well have transformed the entire constitutional basis of the empire, opting for a confederal structure. In 1754 British imperial politicians on both sides of the Atlantic drew up remarkably sophisticated plans for confederal union. After much discussion and debate within the Board of Trade and among ministerial circles George Montagu-Dunk, second earl of Halifax, circulated his ‘Draft of a Plan or Project for a General Concert’. Less than a month earlier, Benjamin Franklin had played a key role in drafting the different, but remarkably similar, Albany Plan of Union. .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.021
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→