The Purchase of Wax from Flanders by the Merchants of Burgos According to the Notarial Protocols of Alonso González de Nestares y Aguayo (1561-1568)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notarial protocols keep thousands of deeds of sale of wax from Flanders. This work focuses on the records of the notary of the city of Burgos (Spain), Alonso González de Nestares and Aguayo. The preserved documentation is quite scarce. Only five files remain with chronological gaps: 1561 (February-June), 1564 (January-August), 1568 (December 1567-July 1568), 1575 (without chronological order), and 1576 (December 1575-December 1576). Despite this constraint, the richness of the data the documents contain will help us better understand the wax trade, a very important product in the daily life of man throughout its history. In the mid-16th century, Flanders became the most important wax supplier in Burgos. Some of the main international merchants are going to be the ones that import the wax and introduce it into the sales channels of the city, closing wholesale deals with other local commercials interested in this business. But the most abundant sales are those made by these local intermediaries to other Burgos, churches, clergy and neighbors of the province; It also allows us to know the price fluctuation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".