Capital punishment, 1700-1934 : a case study of Hull
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[From the introduction:]This thesis explores capital punishment from 1700-1934 in one English locality, Hull. A series of questions are addressed throughout this dissertation in order to understand the role of the criminal justice system in Hull. These are: to what extent was capital punishment utilised in Hull in this period; what views, if any, can be uncovered regarding capital punishment in this locality; and, how does local experience fit into reforms in the criminal justice system in this period. This in-depth study will also consider contributions that one locality gives to current debates of the Bloody Code in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-centuries, and also the relatively unexplored perception of capital punishment behind prison walls during the twentieth-century. By focussing new research around these questions, this study demonstrates how the criminal justice system operated in Hull, making great use of the Quarter Sessions and newspapers to suggest Hull’s autonomy as a judicial centre in the eighteenth-century, and how it conformed to national reforms in the nineteenth- and twentieth-centuries as the power of the central state expanded over peripheral settlements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".