MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200207306 · doi:10.1163/9789004472754_003

Britain’s Wars with France 1793–1815 and Their Contribution to the Consolidation of Its Industrial Revolution

2021· book-chapter· en· W4200207306 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick Karl O’Brien

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Investment (military)PopulationQuarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsPoliticsEconomyMarket economyEconomic policyBusinessPolitical scienceFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article discusses the economic consequences of Britain’s wars with France in the period 1793-1815. It seeks to answer two questions: Why did this warfare not substantially depress growth of GDP? and, What may have been its positive legacies and spinoffs for Britain’s economy? It argues that the costs of recruiting a substantial part of Britain’s labour force were fairly low as the manpower used by the armed forces to a considerable amount consisted of under-employed and unskilled labour. Changes in fiscal, financial and monetary policies financed the wars without crowding out investment in the wider economy. Agriculture responded positively to rising prices and managed to feed the growing population. Major industries — including the iron, coal, cotton and armament industries — built up new capacities in the hothouse conditions of the wartime economy. The upswing in expenditure and investment by the state helped to create favorable (geo)political conditions and prospects for expanding the export of services and commodities. In the long term, the outcome of the wars was a situation in which Britannia ruled the waves and retained large profits from building and supplying ships, shipping, marine insurance, banking, commercial, and entrepôt services for the rest of the world.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207