MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411582449 · doi:10.14713/njs.v11i1.377

“Judge Stockton was Most Particularly Importunate”

2025· article· en· W4411582449 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Robert Swanson

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Jersey Studies An Interdisciplinary Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoUniversity of South CarolinaUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article examines the role of coalition building and ideological fractures within the American Whig movement during the Revolutionary era through the lens of Richard Stockton's life and experiences. As a prominent New Jersey lawyer and politician, Stockton's journey from moderate Whig to signer of the Declaration of Independence to parole-taker illustrates the complex and shifting nature of political allegiances during this tumultuous period. The essay argues that while a shared Whig ideology helped unite diverse factions against British policies in the 1760s-70s, the pressures of war exposed underlying tensions and differing interpretations of what it meant to be a committed Patriot. Stockton's temporary ostracization after accepting a British pardon in 1776 reveals how radical Whigs sought to police the boundaries of acceptable patriotic behavior. However, his gradual reintegration into Patriot circles demonstrates the limits of such exclusion and the eventual reconstruction of a broader Whig coalition. By tracing these dynamics of unity, fracture, and reconciliation, this study provides new insights into the ideological complexities of the American Revolution and the malleable nature of political identity in times of crisis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0110.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.363 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 venueNew Jersey Studies An Interdisciplinary JournalSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207