Documentary evidence and the medieval pottery industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sampling of the widely dispersed documentary evidence allows a first, necessarily tentative analysis of the industry. Even in the pre-Conquest period there is some evidence for specialist potting; and early medieval potters were small-holders whose main occupation was pot-making, often in small communal groups. A 13th century increase in the number of potters and an improvement in the products represented a response to a more prosperous market, although there is little sign of improvement in the potters' own economic position. Following a general economic depression in the last quarter of the 14th century, many potters shifted their main interest to agriculture, potting standards declined and elaborate decoration disappeared. However, peasant potters continued to produce their own wares. Throughout the middle ages, direct copying and the exchange of ideas at central markets assisted the rapid movement of pottery styles between regions. Appended data include pre-1350 clay payments, land-holdings of potters before and after 1250, place name evidence, and distribution maps (Somerset, Sussex and W R Yorks) showing known sites of potteries.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".