MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Historical Perspectives on Seafarers and the Law

2005· book-chapter· en· W4388175530 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel T. Fitzpatrick, Michael Anderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)LawAphorismIsolation (microbiology)Period (music)EmpirePolitical scienceHistoryPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Samuel Johnson’s aphorism was apt, not only in the 18th century, but for many 1.01 years before and afterwards. Employment at sea meant danger, isolation and restriction. It also meant that the seafarer was generally out of reach of any legal system which might be used to protect him, even if legal protection of the interests of workers was fairly scant at the time in many parts of the world.At the same time, shipping, as a commercial activity, was specially regulated from ancient times, through the medieval age, and up to the modern period. Some part of that regulation was directed to the condition of the seafarer. In Roman law, the Praetor’s Edict, eventually applicable throughout the Empire, In the UK, for example, laws seeking to reduce the physical risks of employment (the Factories Acts) begin to be seen in the second quarter of the 19th century, together with some regulation of the method of paying wages (the Truck Acts), but laws directed more widely to the improvement of the mutual rights and responsibilities of employment do not appear until the second half of the 20th century.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207