MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W27505837 · doi:10.1364/oe.24.018745

Crime, Prosecution and Social Relations: The Summary Courts of the City of London in the Late Eighteenth Century

2009· book· en· W27505837 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Drew Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Entomology and Zoology · 2009
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencySemiconductor Research CorporationFord Foundation
KeywordsGeorgianCriminologyPrismLawCriminal justiceContext (archaeology)ApprenticeshipNegotiationPolitical scienceQuarter (Canadian coin)Period (music)Social history (medicine)SociologyHistoryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crime, Prosecution and Social Relations offers a fascinating view of the social history of Georgian London through the hitherto neglected prism of the Summary courts. This study looks at how rich and poor Londoners used these courts to prosecute those that assaulted or stole from them; to negotiate better working conditions; and to punish prostitutes, vagrants and disorderly apprentices. It argues that while most previous work on crime has focused on the courts of assize and quarter session, and on offences that attracted sentences of hanging and transportation, it was at Summary level that most people experienced the law in this period. This is the first monograph to deal exclusively with the nature and role of summary proceedings in England in the long eighteenth century within the context of the social history of crime and the criminal justice system and therefore represents an important addition to our understanding of this area of history

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Entomology and ZoologySame topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207