Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commoner Royal Relations (CRR) is the application of rule of law (RoL) methodologies of international relations diplomacy and civil military relations (CRM) to monarchic states open governance. Its open research began when I had the honor to have a friendly talk to a half Polish member of the Imperial House of Portugal and Brazil when I had an intimate relationship with a German aristocrat and was developed due to the responsibilities of my works as a poor commoner worker in projects of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Belgian Royal Academy of Fine Arts from Antwerp, Spain Royal Prado Museums, Danish Royal Academy of Arts and Science, Brazil Pro-Monarchy Movement, Tibetan Embassy Culture House, United Kingdom Kensington Unitarian Church and Westminster Friends House, Swedish Mission Council (SMC) Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) Learning Platform, and countless tribes with Nobel Prize winning level academics and nobles from worldwide. Its purpose is to stimulate mutually-beneficial cooperation on behalf of the commons' welfare sustainable development (SD). It was compiled for the Wikimedia WikiProject on Royalty and Nobility 'Royal Studies' article workgroup creation edit-a-thon of the International Society of Commoners Heraldry.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.021 |
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".