Bibliographic record
Abstract
LIFE AND DEATH IN ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND In the year 1581, in the county of Lancashire in the northwest part of England, a wealthy landowner by the name of Alexander Houghton died without legitimate heirs to inherit his wealth and continue his title. Alexander Houghton was a nobleman with a large estate, a household with more than thirty servants, and substantial income from his properties and investments. Alexander loved the arts, theater, and music and supported a troupe of players from a local acting company in Lea Hall, Lancashire. Although Alexander's half brother and brother-in-law inherited a part of the estate, he left provisions in his will that the younger servants and employees be given permanent employment with his relatives and that they be granted permanent financial support. All in all, Alexander left a substantial fraction of the estate to his devoted servants and employees. As anyone who has watched and enjoyed the PBS television show Downton Abbey can attest, the relationship between master and servant was quite close in England, having been developed over many years and generations. However – and this is where things get interesting – Alexander Houghton didn't quite hand over a lump sum of money to his favored group of servants. Rather, he set up a long-term arrangement, which was equivalent to a strange sort of retirement pension. First, the will specified that the annual rents from properties contained in the estate, amounting to about 330 shillings per year, be distributed among eleven of his most favored employees. It appears that the oldest was to receive 66 shillings per year, the next oldest 40 shillings per year, and so on, all the way to the youngest, who was to receive 13 shillings per year for life. These sums might seem trivial by today's standards, but in the mid-sixteenth century the average industrial wage was 125 shillings a year.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.023 |
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".