MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

London's Soap Industry and the Development of Global Ghost Acres in the Nineteenth Century

2019· article· en· W2949668923 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and History · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnightTallowSymbol (formal)Economic historyEconomyColonialismLate 19th centuryGeographyBusinessHistoryEconomicsArchaeologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract John Knight and Sons soap company, like other successful soap manufacturers in Greater London, grew during the nineteenth century by combining technological innovation and marketing to sell increasing quantities of a product the British public increasingly saw as a symbol of their advanced civilisation. They did not struggle with the ecological limits of their regional hinterlands to provide the raw materials, as they relied on growing quantities of tallow, rosin and other commodities supplied from overseas ghost acres. John Knight and Sons linked consumers to environmental transformations and large-scale colonial dispossession in Europe, the Americas and Australasia. Millions of sheep and cattle were raised on the abundant grasslands found on the Eurasian steppe, the Pampas, the Great Plains and in Australasia, many of which were killed and processed only for their tallow, skins or hides. Economic and environmental factors created significant instability in the global tallow supply, but the end result was greater quantities of cheaper tallow shipped to market in London. These global ghost acres made the nineteenth century success of John Knight and Sons and other major soap producers in Greater London possible.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · 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