The Colonial Policy of Great Britain in the Assessments of English Intellectuals of the 18th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the works of famous intellectuals of the Enlightenment (D. Defoe, J. Swift, Halifax, Ed. Burke, Ed. Fletcher, J. Priestley, B. Mandeville etc.), the author for the first time in historical science addresses their views on the colonial policy of Great Britain in the XVIII century. Enlightenment figures who defended “land” interests (Party of Tories), criticized the actions of the authorities, since any external expansion (wars or the seizure of colonies) undermined the economic base of landowners. Supporters of “monetary” interests (Party of Whigs), approved of the policy aimed at expanding the territorial possessions of England, became initiators of projects to improve the army and navy, as they saw guarantees of successful territorial conquests. In the second half of the 18th century, with the growth of democratic transformations in the country, most intellectuals began to oppose colonial wars. They approved of the liberation wars of the North American colonies, India, and Ireland, and also advocated the right of nations to self-determination.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".