Bibliographic record
Abstract
Old Age and the English Poor Law, 1500-1700 explores the virtually unknown world of the aged poor in sixteenth-and seventeenth-century England.It asks a question of national significance -how the elderly poor managed to survive in a pre-industrial economy -but answers it at the level of the village.Through a comparison of two Suffolk villages, the many factors that make up the experience of old age (status, health, wealth and local culture) are fully recognized, acknowledged, and factored into the interpretation.Botelho argues that the key to survival for these individuals was their own efforts, over and above that of a weekly pension.In other words, even for the aged, if one did not work, one did not eat.This study is a test case of the old poor law.Using the aged poor -a group indisputably deserving of charity, aid and relief -Botelho demonstrates that the poor law did not, nor did it intend to, provide complete support.It was not designed to be an early modern form of retirement, nor did it function as such.Instead, Old Age and the English Poor Law presents the complex and face-to-face world of early modern England and documents the personal agency of the poor as they fashioned their own, individualized old age arrangements that drew just as heavily upon their own efforts as they did upon charity and legislated relief.L. A. BOTELHO is an associate professor of history at Indiana University of Pennsylvania.Her work includes Old Age in Pre-Industrial Society (with S. Ottawa and K
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.954 | 0.908 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".