MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132892105

Montesquieu's Rome

2019· dissertation· W7132892105 on OpenAlexaff
Nathaniel K. Gilmore

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2019
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theory and Influence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHarvard University
KeywordsPoliticsElement (criminal law)Power (physics)Order (exchange)Context (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rome, in its greatness, its virtue, its cunning, its laws, and its Empire, frames Montesquieu’s political thought, and Montesquieu, through Rome, unearths the foundations, the benefits, and the weaknesses of our modern, liberal order. This dissertation treats Montesquieu as what he claimed to be—a historian and a jurist of the first rank; it restores Rome to its proper place in his thought and his thought to its proper place in the Enlightenment. Rome is the fabric Montesquieu seals with his golden moderation, and his moderation, delicate but strong, is his signature.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1460.025

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.397 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicPolitical Theory and InfluenceFrench-language works237,207