MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W652633281 · doi:10.1017/9781846152399

The University of London, 1858-1900: The Politics of Senate and Convocation

2004· book· en· W652633281 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F. M. G. Willson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterVetoInstitutionPoliticsHouse of CommonsPolitical scienceQuarter (Canadian coin)Higher educationSociologyLawPublic administrationMedia studiesHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A history of London University in the second half of the nineteenth century, focusing on political as well as academic developments. In 1858 the University - in reality an examining board - opened its non-medical examinations to candidates irrespective of how they prepared themselves. At the same time, graduates could join the newly established Convocation, forfour decades empowered to veto changes in the University's Charter, choose a quarter of the governing body the Senate, and, from 1868, elect the University's MP. This book analyses the delicate and often stressful relations of Senate and Convocation, covering the long struggle over admission of women to degrees; the contribution of the University to secondary education; the establishment of the University's seat in the House of Commons, and the subsequentelections of Members. Later chapters describe the extended campaign to change the institution into an orthodox university, and the political struggles and academic manoeuvring that attended the process. F.M.G. WILLSON has retired from an academic and administrative career in Zimbabwe, North America, London and Australia

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations42
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAustralian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207