WORDS, BRICKS AND DEEDS: THE FOUNDATIONS OF HOME RULE IN THE BRITISH-AMERICAN COLONIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legal and cultural tension between cities, towns and state government, characterized as the question of home rule, has existed since the creation of the Republic. The founding of the New World required the creation of new settlements and these settlements serve as an example of settler’s interest in home rule. This thesis examines the founding of nine communities in British North America: Dedham and Sudbury, Massachusetts; Exeter, New Hampshire; New Haven, Connecticut; Albany, New York; Germantown and Carlisle, Pennsylvania; Savannah and Ebenezer, Georgia. Evidence from charter documents, colonial legislation, writings, town plans and secondary resources, such as the published history of towns, is used to explain how the “words, bricks and deeds” of settlers give evidence of their home rule. It provides background on other settlements, including Spanish, French, indigenous and maroon communities. The interdisciplinary analysis is given in contrast to the analysis of the legal doctrine commonly known as “Dillon’s Rule.” It closes by examining the larger issue of the changing nature of municipal, as opposed to private, corporations. The thesis looks at the settlement of the Northwest Territories, or present-day Ohio to describe how the federal and state government replaced the colonial authorities and exerted control of municipal corporations bringing us to our current state of tension.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".