En busca del marido ideal: ¿Es posible medir la desigualdad en la era preindustrial a través de las dotes? Nordeste de Cataluña, 1750-1825
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the possibilities that dowries may offer to study inequality in the pre-industrial era. We argue that, mostly, in rural societies with impartible inheritance, families competed to join the heir of an estate that would allow them to maintain or even improve their socio-economic status by means of paying the best possible dowry. Hence, dowries may be an indicator of family wealth and, therefore, disparities in dowry amounts could be informing about economic inequality. Then, we show the results of a case study based on a rural region in north-eastern Catalonia from 1750 to 1825, which suggest that over the last decades of the 18th century and the first quarter of the 19th century, inequality increased significantly. As it was a period of belli-cosity and inflation, our results suggest that political instability tended to increase inequality in pre-industrial societies, as it has been previously stated by some authors
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".