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
Ken MacMillan argues that the English were heavily invested in arguments derived from Roman law as they began to claim territory in the New World.Examining the period from Frobisher's first voyage until the English Civil War, he thus interrogates English expansionism using the categories of sovereignty and legal pluralism.According to MacMillan, English common law could not be exported outside English borders and remained silent on the problem of the acquisition of new territories.Similarly, Europe as a whole was involved in negotiations over the division of newfound lands, and could not rely on any one nation's vernacular law.As a result, Roman law and its derivatives-particularly the Justinianic insistence on both mental and physical possession-became increasingly important to any claims about imperial sovereignty.This situation, then, created an overtly imperial colonial framework since the structure of power necessitated that the colonial patent holder interacted directly with the English crown acting in its absolute capacity.This book is persuasive and carefully argued, mustering an impressive range of source material.That said, it is also densely packed with legal distinctions, and the most accessible and engaging chapter is that dealing with maps.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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