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
The relationship between slavery, the slave trade and British economic development remains a contested field of eighteenth century history. This article examines one hitherto unexplored aspect of the subject, the significance, if any, of profits derived from the slave-based economies of the Atlantic in Scotland's Great Leap Forward in the later eighteenth century. It is argued that because of the distinctive nature of Scottish development, compared to that of England, and the intimate connections between Scotland and plantation economies the question does merit serious consideration. The article, however, supports the traditional view that slave trading direct from Scottish ports was very limited, although Scottish merchants and mariners were often heavily involved in slave trafficking from London, Bristol and Liverpool. The key Scottish link was with the tobacco and sugar trades, plantation ownership in the Caribbean and as merchants, physicians, attorneys and overseers in the plantation economies. It is argued that in terms of both capital transfers and market opportunities slavery can indeed be considered one of the factors facilitating development in Scotland and was possibly a much more significant influence north of the border than in the industrialisation of England.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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