Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate over a ten-hour work day was the key issue of British labour legislation in the 1830s and 1840s, culminating in the so-called “Ten Hours’ Bill” of 1847, which was later amended by a stricter act in 1850. Proposals emerged as early as 1831, but disagreement proceeded over the issues of how many hours to permit and whether regulation was needed at all. Furthermore, the factory acts of this period were plagued by loopholes, and enforcement struggled due to a lack of resources. Legislation for a ten-hour work day was beset by compromise, and although it was popular among Parliamentary paternalists, even they would compromise when faced with the intense pressure of opposing MPs, many of whom had direct connections to manufacturing industries. Despite frequent petitions and the agitation of political societies outside of Parliament, a true ten hours’ bill was never fully implemented. Parliament successfully passed multiple factory regulations in this period, but the questions surrounding reform remained unresolved.
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 | 0.034 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".