MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7034717625

Weaving Independence from a Distant Cottage Industry

2006· article· en· W7034717625 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFLAGS registerWeavingClothingHandicraftBuntingSymbol (formal)Independence (probability theory)TextileCraft
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The fabric of flags is inextricably woven into our cultural heritage. Throughout civilization flags have heralded national identity in war and peace, as symbols of both victor and defender. Research into the origins of early 1800 flag fabrics wove a fascinating tie to England, where the wool fabric was made, and why it survived while the weaving industry was mechanized during the industrial revolution. Bunting fabric provided the canvas for the flag as a symbol of a nation and its people. This makes the history of bunting and its struggle for survival into the nineteenth century, an integral facet of our history. In England the fabric trade was being driven by the new economics and scale of production brought about by the industrial revolution. Bunting was used almost exclusively for flags, and its survival through this period was aided by the very structure of the fabric itself. Heavier fabrics were woven by men, but the lightweight character and smaller dimensions of bunting meant it could be woven by women and children. This provided not only a welcome but a necessary contribution to the economic wellbeing of working class households. The manufacture of bunting was a cottage industry based in the region around the village of Sudbury in Suffolk, a manufacturing town dating back to medieval times. With changes in transportation and the availability of new routes, the proximity of Sudbury to London allowed local clothiers easier access to principal buyers of bunting, and consequently close access to import trade in bunting. Textile Manufacture in Early Modern England While the woolen industry had been prevalent in England for centuries, a colony of Flemish worsted weavers settled in Sudbury, Suffolk during the reign of Edward III (1312-1377). The Flemings also introduced the jersey tammy that was being made in Norwich in the 1570s. Jersey bunting was a variety of tammy suitable for flags as its wool yarns were opaque even in the strongest light. The first unequivocal record of worsted tammy manufacturing was in Norwich, Norfolk in 1605. There was a gradual spelling change from estamet to tammy to tamett, and by 1633 this became tammett. A stammet or tammy yarn was one that had been shrunk and smoothed by scouring and a tammy cloth the cloth woven from these yarns. The worsted tammies were lightweight, plain-weave fabrics, thinly warped so they were strong and stringy. They were often highly glazed by hot pressing and other means. A special form of the tammy called bunt or bunting was sold for making flags.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207