Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter assesses the interplay of technological innovation and market forces on the development of press and periodical publishing in nineteenth-century Great Britain. It gives due consideration to the significance of institutional factors and the role of government policies towards publishing up until 1855. The chapter begins by exploring how the so-called ‘taxes on knowledge’ affected the economics of periodical and penny magazines publishing in the first half of the nineteenth-century. It then moves on to consider the economic development of the press in Britain and Ireland across three distinct time periods. Until mid-century, periodical publishing firms tended to be small businesses, mainly family-owned, that almost invariably produced just a single title. Between 1850 and 1870, a small number of London-based publishers began to issue a portfolio of publications, particularly in the field of popular women’s magazines and Sunday newspapers, directed at a national audience served by vertically integrated wholesalers/retailers, most notably W.H. Smith. By the final quarter of the nineteenth-century radical improvements in the technology of printing and increased disposable incomes facilitated the emergence of large-scale newspaper and magazine enterprises such as those of George Newnes and Alfred Harmsworth, focused on London’s Fleet Street.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.005 |
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".