Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last quarter of the nineteenth century saw Britain as a whole become more urbanised, more industrial and commercial, and more prosperous. Notwithstanding the emergence of foreign competitors, the fluctuations of the trade cycle and the re-discovery of poverty amidst plenty, late-Victorian society enjoyed higher standards of living than ever before. Society was more stable and less conflict ridden, though the industrial disturbances and political protests could still shock the sensibilities of late-Victorian commentators. Serious crime against both person and property, at least as recorded in the official statistics, was clearly in decline. Despite a number of significant changes in the legal system, particularly the continuing extension of summary justice in 1879, which make difficult long-term comparisons, it would appear that, contrary to the claims of Howard Taylor, this was a genuine long-term decline for the reasons argued in the introduction to this study. 1 Although there remained an unknown quantity of crime that never formally came to the attention of the authorities, there is good reason to believe that the official statistics reflected a real decrease (at least until the early twentieth century) as working-class living standards improved and as new standards of behaviour were adopted across an ever-widening spectrum of society. 2 However, at the same time, there were growing concerns about immoral and illegal behaviour among the working-class population. Drinking and increasingly gambling were linked with criminality, inefficiency and degeneration. 3 These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".