MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208055749 · doi:10.4324/9780203449059-5

CONVERGING ACCOUNTS, MISLEADING METAPHORS AND PERSISTENT DOUBTS : Reflections on the historiography of Britain’s ‘decline’

2002· article· en· W3208055749 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Dintenfass

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoriographyLeagueStandard of livingEconomic historyHistoryPer capita incomeLeague tablePolitical scienceEconomicsDevelopment economicsDemographySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1960 Britain came tenth in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) league table of real income per capita.2 This represented a striking change from fifty years earlier when Britain had been the wealthiest nation in Europe and if not the richest country in the world, then behind only the United States and perhaps Canada. That the average Briton in 1960 enjoyed a standard of living that his countrymen of 1910 would hardly have been able to conceive of was certainly true. It was equally true, however, that over the intervening decades real income per head had grown more slowly in Britain than in several other nations.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.125 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207