Bibliographic record
Abstract
La mayor industria de Toledo durante la Edad Moderna fue la de tejidos de seda. Su epoca de mayor apogeo fue el siglo XVI, comenzando su decadencia en el ultimo cuarto de dicho siglo, continuando su declive a lo largo de la centuria siguiente y desapareciendo a finales del XVIII o principios del XIX. Las causas de su ruina fueron multiples, unas generales al pais, por lo tanto no achacables especificamente a Toledo; otras propias del gremio y de las ordenanzas que le regian. La hartura de soportar los tejedores una discriminacion en la cuenta, peso y ley de sus tejidos con respecto a otras ciudades y a los importados del extranjero, les condujo a realizar un plante en el ano 1737, paralizando sus telares cortando las telas que en ellos estaban laborando. The most important industry of Toledo during the Modern Age was that of fabrics of its silk fabrics. Its moment of major height was the 16 th century, beginning his decadence in the last quarter of the above mentioned century, continuing his decline throughout the following century and disappearing at the end of the 18 th or beginning of the 19 th . The reasons of its ruin were multiple, a few of them were applicable to the whole country, therefore not imputable specifically to Toledo; but others are linked to the union and the ordinances that were being applied. The weavers were fed up after being discriminated regarding the account, weight and law of its fabrics in comparison with other cities and to the materials imported by the foreigners, drove them to go on a strike in the year 1737, paralyzing his looms and cutting the fabrics with which they were working.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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.
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".