<i>The Logic of Charity: Amsterdam, 1800–1850</i>. By Marco van Leeuwen. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000. Pp. xvi, 242. $69.95.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this book, Marco van Leeuwen attempts to answer three questions about poor relief in Amsterdam during the period immediately preceding Dutch industrialization: “Which groups provided poor relief and why? Which groups received poor relief and why? What effects did poor relief have on society?” (p. 2). To answer these questions, van Leeuwen develops a model whereby the poor-relief system served as an “exchange mechanism” (p. 33). On the one side, the rich used the system as “a control strategy” (p. 3) to influence the behavior of the poor in ways advantageous to themselves. According to van Leeuwen, there were a number of ways in which the poor-relief system met elite needs. Economically, it allowed them to control the labor market by ensuring there would be a labor reserve on hand to meet seasonal demand. Politically, it helped legitimize the social order and prevent unrest. Medically, it helped prevent the spread of disease through compulsory vaccination schemes. Finally, the poor relief system helped to instil proper values in the poor.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".