Did royalties really impact on profits to the extent that coal companies believed? A case study of the Denbighshire Coalfield, 1870–1914
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the last quarter of the nineteenth century coal companies in the UK became increasingly vocal in their condemnation of the royalty rates charged by the mineral owners of the UK. Such was the furore that a Royal Commission on Mining Royalties was set up in 1890 with a remit to investigate these concerns. However, the commission concluded that royalties were not unduly harsh and did not make up a disproportionate part of costs. This article is an attempt to establish whether the views of the coal companies had any basis in fact or whether, as Mitchell asserts, ‘royalties formed a comparatively unimportant fraction of the total cost of the coal industry in the nineteenth century’ (B.R. Mitchell, (1984), The economic development of the British coal industry 1800–1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 256). We start by considering royalties within a UK context and the issues that affected the methods used and the rates set. We then examine how royalties affected the profits per ton of the coal companies in Denbighshire for which archival records survive. This will enable us to determine whether Mitchell's view was correct or whether, as Fine believes, the impact can only be determined by considering the marginal impact of royalties on profits.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it