Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boroughs, Markets and Fairs, 1200–1349 At the end of the eleventh century Suffolk contained three of England’s most important towns and four other boroughs. In 1066 Ipswich had been comfortably the county’s largest town, but was strongly associated with resistance to William I’s conquest, and by 1086 – the date of the Domesday Survey – had suffered severe depopulation and destruction. In stark contrast, Bury St Edmunds and Dunwich flourished under Norman patronage and expanded rapidly between 1066 and 1086, by which date they both rated among England’s top ten towns. The Normans actively developed Dunwich as a commercial centre and port to rival Ipswich, and its impressive growth continued during the twelfth century, so that by 1200 it was the only place in Suffolk to be ranked among England’s ten wealthiest towns. However, none of Suffolk’s towns was large by modern standards, and even Dunwich’s population in 1086 probably did not exceed 3,000. Domesday Book also records the existence of burgesses at Beccles, Clare, Eye and Sudbury; markets at Blythburgh, Haverhill, Hoxne, Kelsale and Thorney (Stowmarket); and a fair at Aspall. Others must have escaped mention, and there is no doubt that the urban and commercial structure of late eleventh-century Suffolk was already well developed by the standards of the time. Demographic and economic expansion over the next two centuries resulted in a two- to threefold growth in the population of many of these early boroughs and towns, peaking in the early fourteenth century. The expanding economy also encouraged the foundation of new boroughs, markets and fairs, which reduced the costs and risks of trade by bringing traders together in an environment that offered some legal protection. It has been estimated that between c. 1100 and c. 1349 the Crown granted charters for over 2,000 weekly markets and 400 boroughs in England. After 1100 hardly any new boroughs were created in Suffolk, although the scale of market and fair foundation was prodigious.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".