Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation addresses two research questions derived from Gatrell’s account of the development of the criminal justice system nationally during this period as a disciplinary ‘policeman-state’ - the extent to which national policy and regulation shaped the workings of the criminal justice system Hull during this period and whether the delivery of the system locally was focused on imposing social discipline on the working-classes. Police court, quarter sessions and Town Council records and reporting in the local press are used to investigate these questions. \n \nThe study concludes that local decision-making was important throughout this period, although by 1877 the government had decided to centralise control of the nationally poor quality prison service. The Town Council was proud of its police force and fiercely defensive of local control. Whilst working-class defendants charged with drunkenness and disorder dominate the police court records, the severest punishment was reserved for those whose crimes went to the heart of the concerns of a mercantile and commercial city – such those who refused to support themselves and their families, prostitutes and servants who stole from their masters. The working-class used the courts to meet their needs, bringing cases against employers, deserting husbands and for theft and assault. \n \nThe dynamics of a port town with a mercantile and commercial economy did not result in a mass working-class in Hull, nor a police-man state imposing discipline upon it. The port was important to the prosperity of the town and shipowners and merchants used their power and influence to support their commercial interest in their roles in the criminal justice system.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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".