Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of early watermills has, from its very beginning, concentrated on two issues: their diffusion (in time and space) and their technical construction. Very little interest has been devoted to the persons who built and managed them—the millwrights and the millers. This tendency has been even more manifest from the 1980s onward, when interest has focused more and more on the increasing number of archaeological finds. The written evidence, our almost sole source for people connected with the mills, plays a quite insignificant part in modern scholarship. This short article does not aim at far-reaching conclusions concerning the socioeconomic conditions of the two professions involved. Its main purpose is to show the extent of the evidence actually at hand. The varied nature of this evidence, as well as the uncertain authenticity of parts of it, complicates the study. After a short presentation of the terminology, I start my investigation by presenting the millers according to the three basic socioeconomic areas within which they were working, and end up with a discussion of the millwrights, in order to show how the two occupations were at least partly related.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".