Parliament, Physicians, and Nuisances: The Demedicalization of Nuisance Law, 1831-1855
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Britain in 1830, nuisances legally comprised a heterogeneous collection of irritants, united by their ability to cause hurt, inconvenience, or damage. The only legal remedies for nuisances that applied to the entire country were provided through the common law. Though respected, common-law procedure was time consuming, costly, uncertain, and intended to protect the enjoyment of property, not of health. Dangers to health could be removed if they were a nuisance, yet health hazards were not conceptualized separately from nuisances in general, nor were they dealt with differently in practice. This paper demonstrates that during the 1831-32 cholera epidemic, and again in 1846, the executive and the legislature created a strictly medicalized health hazard as part of the transformation in nuisance law and practice. The paper argues, however, that the creation of a medicalized health hazard was a defensive reaction on the part of central authorities. Indeed, after 1846 Parliament retreated from a strictly medicalized health hazard in the face of local resistance and skepticism, and by 1855 physicians played only a marginal and supporting role in nuisance practice. The development of nuisance law thus illustrates the local inspiration for sanitary reform and the often highly contested nature of central interventions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".