Australian and commonwealth republicanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
\n\t\t\t\t\tWhen republics, beginning with India in 1949, were first admitted to the Commonwealth of Nations, Australia remained strongly attached to the Crown and the King’s (later the Queen’s) role as Head of the Commonwealth. Indeed, many Australians had seen a shared Crown as axiomatic, and a symbol of Commonwealth unity. Despite bursts of republicanism in Australia during the 19th and 20th centuries, it was not until the 1990s that a republic appeared likely. One historic driver of anti-British Australian republicanism has been the Irish heritage of many Australians. As republicanism grew, it was important that Australia could remain in the Commonwealth as a republic. The past decade has seen a stronger sentiment in Australia than in the other ‘old Dominions’—New Zealand and Canada—that national independence and identity require the symbol of a home-grown head of state, rather than one seen as British. The growth of republicanism in such countries, and in Britain itself, would be likely to encourage republicanism in Australia. Australia’s republican majority has been frustrated by its inability to agree on a model for parliamentary selection or direct election of the president. No Commonwealth country provides a model which Australians find compelling.\n\t\t\t\t
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".