Norwegian Shipping in the Port of Liverpool, 1855–1895: Niche Specialization and Anglo-Norwegian Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Norwegian merchant fleet expanded dramatically during the second and third quarters of the nineteenth century.Between 1850 and 1880 alone it increased more than five-fold, making it not only the fastest-growing but also the third largest fleet in the world by tonnage."This growth also reflected the increasing orientation by Norwegian shipowners towards international freight markets; by 1875, seventy-eight percent of the fleet's earnings came from the cross-trades.3 The expansion of the Norwegian fleet was part of a broader change in the maritime sector in the second half of the nineteenth century.As a response to improved access to international shipping markets after the repeal of the British Navigation Acts, fleets from nations such as Canada, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Greece all experienced periods of expansion that were more rapid than the growth of world tonnage as a whole, thus reducing the lThe authors would like to thank Even Lange, Skip Fischer and the participants at the European Business History Association's Congress in Bergen, Norway, in August 2008 for comments.We are indebted to Professor Robert Lee for access to the Liverpool Mercantile Database and to Kati Nurmi for excellent assistance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".