MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388850622 · doi:10.1111/hic3.12794

Britain's fiscal‐military state in the eighteenth century: Recent trends in historiography

2023· article· en· W4388850622 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory Compass · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersUniversity of Regina
KeywordsHistoriographyState (computer science)IdeologyPower (physics)Argument (complex analysis)Field (mathematics)State formationHistoryColonialismPolitical scienceMilitary historyEconomic historyPolitical economySociologyLawPoliticsAncient historyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract John Brewer's argument that eighteenth‐century Britain developed a centralized and effective fiscal‐military state that allowed it to become a great power has been instrumental in making early modern state‐building an important field of inquiry for historians. New directions in the field explore conflicting eighteenth‐century ideologies, the notion of a ‘naval‐military’ state, the non‐military dimensions of the state, the nature of the Irish and Scottish fiscal‐military states, the relationship between Britain's central state and colonial states, and the relationship between the state and the informal actors who served it.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.169 · 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