A post bellum paradox: net nutrition variation by socioeconomic status, gender and race using 19<sup>th</sup> and 20<sup>th</sup> century US prison records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When traditional measures for material conditions are scarce or unreliable, body mass, height, and weight are complements to standard income and wealth measures. A persistent question in welfare studies is the 19th century’s 2nd and 3rd quarter’s stature diminution, a pattern known as the antebellum paradox. However, the question may not be well stated nor experienced equally by women and non-white male samples. The late 19th century’s political Granger, Greenback, and Populist movements may have affected farmer and non-farmer’s net nutrition. Despite 19th and early 20th century US political movements, farmers had greater BMIs, taller statures, and heavier weights than non-farmers. From the 1870s through 1890s, women’s body mass, height, and weight increased relative to men. Individuals of African or mixed European-African descent had heavier weights and greater BMIs than their taller, European-white counterparts, indicating that the traditional antebellum paradox needs to include women and non-European males and weight measures.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".