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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until the 1750s, most Britons agreed that English law should govern the entire British Empire. The laws of Britain’s colonies were never identical to those of England (or to each other), but some version of English law generally followed the Union Jack. As this book shows, Britain’s commitment to an imperial common law collapsed after the Seven Years’ War (1754–63), when Britain adopted a new policy of legal pluralism. While it continued to impose English law on some colonies, others—including Bengal and Quebec—retained their previous legal regimes. Britain’s selective denial of English law to its colonies reflected a conscious effort to shape their political and economic development. Policymakers thought English law could turn any territory into an anglicized, commercial colony like Britain’s earlier American settlements. Just as English law had transmuted Dutch New Amsterdam into English New York, the common law could work the same alchemy on Britain’s newest conquests. Legal pluralism, in contrast, would keep colonies culturally distinct, politically dependent, and economically subordinate. Thus, by deciding how much English law each colony received, British officials could determine what kind of colony it would become. Britain’s selective turn toward legal pluralism after 1763 reflected the triumph of a particular vision of the British Empire—politically hierarchical, economically extractive, and culturally tolerant—over more assimilationist and egalitarian alternatives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it