Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The British writer Elizabeth Hamilton (1756–1816) used her publications, fiction and nonfiction, rather than political polemic, to contribute to the revolutionary debate about female capabilities and appropriate education. In this way she avoided the personal attacks experienced by her more radical and outspoken female contemporaries. However, Hamilton’s focus on educational philosophy and economic independence over sexual freedoms meant that her revolutionary ideas have often been overlooked. Hamilton argued that a clear and current knowledge of the workings of the mind—a philosophy of understanding—was a necessary foundation for any effective educational reform. Her publications, whether fiction, historical biography or educational treatise, map the evolution of her understanding of, and contribution to, moral and educational philosophy. As a result, Hamilton’s moral philosophy and educational theory build more on the ideas of Scottish Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Reid and Dugald Stewart than on the educationalists Mary Wollstonecraft, Hannah More, or Richard and Maria Edgeworth. She drew on her reading of Locke, Hume, and Reid, and her friendships with Stewart, Moyes, and Alison, to argue that a grounding in moral philosophy was a necessary cornerstone of any educational reform.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.128 | 0.030 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".