Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 1780, only 3 per cent of the population in England and Wales could vote. The 1832 Reform Bill increased the electorate to 18 per cent of adult males. However, no straight path leads from the 1782 call for reform to 1832, nor is there any real connection through the 1790s ‘rights of man’ debate. Whig Reform motions were repeatedly defeated. After 1816, the return of unemployed soldiers from over twenty years of war transformed Reform from an arcane parliamentary issue into a populist cry: William Cobbett’s Political Register educated the working classes into political self-consciousness. Paradoxically, it was the Ultra-Tories, feeling betrayed by Catholic Emancipation (1829)—the real constitutional issue—who introduced the Reform Bill. This chapter looks at the literary narrative of ‘Reform’ as seen in Lord Byron’s Don Juan and its piracies, Cobbett’s Political Register, Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s Friend, Blackwood’s, and the parliamentary exchanges of Thomas Babington Macaulay and John Wilson Croker replayed in the Edinburgh and the Quarterly reviews.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".