Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Village and Town population of the South grew by five million people between 1880 and 1910. The growth came fastest in the 1880s, slowed in the 1890s, and then accelerated again in the first decade of the new century. Villages, settled places with populations under 2,500, accounted for about a quarter of that increase. Thousands of new villages came into being between 1880 and 1910 and hundreds more passed over the line into official “urban” status even as larger towns grew into ambitious small cities. In 1900, about one of every six Southerners—in some subregions, one of every four—lived in a village or town. Every subregion contained its landmark cities. The Atlantic coastal plain claimed the ports of Norfolk, Charleston, Savannah, and Jacksonville; the Gulf plain had the ports of Mobile, New Orleans, and Houston. The Piedmont could boast Richmond and Raleigh, plus some of the fastest growing cities of the South—Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Columbia, Augusta, and Atlanta—along with many smaller but flourishing towns. The cities within the recesses of the mountains, Knoxville and Asheville, developed steadily, but Roanoke, Chattanooga, and Birmingham, on the edge of the highlands, grew more impressively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.263 | 0.059 |
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".