MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Archival Impulses and the Gunpowder Plot

2023· book-chapter· en· W4389924741 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul Strohm

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicColonialism, slavery, and trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGunpowderParliamentPlot (graphics)State (computer science)HistoryLawArtArt historyVisual artsPolitical scienceArchaeologyComputer sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter considers the mixture of choice and accident involved in the creation of an archive, and the senses in which a collection’s origins continue to influence the terms of its own study. It considers the assembly of what are known as the Gunpowder papers: the documents associated with the attempt to bomb parliament in London in 1605. Their origins are traced from an initial gathering in a ‘great buckrom bagg of the Powder Treason’ belonging to the Attorney-General Edward Coke, to a ‘Paper Office’ in Whitehall, then to safer lodgings on Chancery Lane and The National Archives at Kew. However, in selecting the Gunpowder papers, many other letters relating to the plot were left in the broader run of State Papers, and perhaps these secondary materials tell us more about the Catholic predicament in Jacobean England.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivesSame topicColonialism, slavery, and tradeFrench-language works237,207