The Industrial Revolution and the Netherlands: Why did it not happen?”. De Econo- 35 mist 148
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why was there no Industrial Revolution in the Netherlands? To ask the question in that form in this day and age invites controversy. Anyone who raises similar – and equally legitimate – questions about China, for instance, is likely to be told that this is a Eurocentric, teleological, and essentialist point of view, which presumes that the Industrial Revolution was some kind of crowning achievement of a concentrated effort. This kind of critique seems rather silly. To ask why any historical event that seems a priori feasible because it did happen elsewhere did not take place is useful analytically: why did Canada not have slavery? why did the U.S. not have a successful socialist movement? why did the Soviet Union fail to develop the microprocessor? These seem useful questions. The stylized facts are well-known. Despite its position as a commercialized, sophisticated, and urban economy, the Netherlands was a latecomer to the Industrial Revolution. Yet while it is legitimate to pose the question why this was so, answering it is decidedly tricky. To sharpen the issue, I should like to follow a Kuznetsian way of formulating what changed in Western Europe in the years of the Industrial Revolution. It was not, it has been said often, the beginning of economic growth, it was the beginning of modern economic growth. That may seem to be a distinction without
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".