The evolution of eighteenth-century upholders in London
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is a study of the eighteenth–century upholding trade in London, concentrating on the last half of the eighteenth century. From using eighteenth–century newspaper advertisements and news items, along with archives and manuscripts, it was possible to quantify key business aspects of upholders. The upholding trade evolved mostly from manufacturing and selling furniture and upholstery goods at the beginning of the eighteenth century into a trade that included funeral undertaking as a core business line by the third quarter of the eighteenth century. A distinct and quantifiable increase occurred in the number of upholders becoming sworn brokers and appraisers after 1760. At the same time, upholders were often associated with auctions, mostly as information providers rather than as actual auctioneers. Another change examined in this thesis is the wide use of private credit in the second-half of the eighteenth century, which increased spending on consumer goods, including those sold by upholders. There was a demonstrable increase in upholder bankruptcies after 1760, mostly caused by the increased use of private credit. The social lives of upholders are also explored. Being a younger gentry son could mean securing an apprenticeship with an elite master and having important family financial backing. A few upholders received large marriage settlements that undoubtedly allowed them to grow their businesses. A handful of upholders accumulated enough profits to purchase country estates and invest in non-upholder related businesses. Most upholders, however, remained in the middling rank of tradesman. The role of women in the upholding trade is significant. Although dominated by men, the upholding trade had women apprentices, and some women carried on the businesses of their deceased husbands. All of the findings in this thesis add to the understanding of upholders and their role in the long eighteenth 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".