Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his 1842 Report on the sanitary condition of the labouring population of Great Britain, Edwin Chadwick demonstrated the existence of a mass of preventable illness and premature death in the community caused, he argued, by insanitary physical circumstances.'Although much of the evidence for the existence of this preventable mortality was anecdotal, Chadwick included a chapter of differential class-based death data which dramatically illustrated the extent to which insanitary physical circumstances shortened life.Chadwick's chosen statistical measure-the average age at which a given class of people died showed that what he called the "average period of life" or "chance of life" was as low as 17 for labourers in Manchester but as high as 52 for gentry in Rutlandshire.2Although his statistics were widely quoted at the time,3 professional statisticians dismissed the data and historians ever since have paid little serious attention to it.4In this paper I will argue that Chadwick's class-based average-age-at-death data were a central feature of the Sanitary report and that we cannot fully appreciate the argument or even the organization of the report without them.
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 | 0.021 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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.
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".