MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406625302 · doi:10.29173/cons29558

Permanency of Dominion

2025· article· en· W4406625302 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deepannita Srabon

Bibliographic record

VenueConstellations · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominionPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The governor general of the East India Company, Lord Cornwallis introduced the permanent settlement act in 1793 in Eastern India. This law expanded to South India later on after the 1800s. The law gave superior landholding rights to a group called Zamindars, a diverse group that can be broadly categorized as rural elites. These land holding rights included a plot with tangible boundaries and tax collection power on behalf of the government. This deed operated on the basis of heritable ownership and would be saleable and mortgageable. However, if a Zamindar failed to pay the revenue before sunset of the due date, the government seized the land and sold it to the highest bidder. This act had both short- and long-term socio-political impacts on its operations. This research looks into the origins of the Permanent Settlement Act of 1793 in a more holistic manner. Most research focuses on either intellectual or political motivations behind the introduction of the Act. This research will try to synthesize the factors and consider the ways they both influenced each other. It will also look into its initial operations and reactions towards it. This will also further explain the Act’s origins by understanding what changed in the first place, why and how so.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.042
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstellationsSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207