Chapter 5 is concerned with Articles 22.6 DSU and 4.10 SCM Agreement – namely, those provisions that allow one Member to bring retaliatory measures against another Member where that other Member fails to bring its measure into compliance with the covered agreement(s). The chapter argues that, although not reflected in current jurisprudence, there should be a need to demonstrate the causal link between a Member’s failure to bring its measure into conformity with a DSB ruling and the level of nullification or impairment incurred (that is, a causal link analysis). The chapter also raises parts of the jurisprudence that would seem to support a non-attribution analysis being used in this context, too. The chapter then puts forward the Non-attribution/Causal Link Analysis as one method for performing these analyses.

I introduce the question of what digital technology is – why it is so powerful, why it is different in kind from other media – by focusing on the convergence of two themes. First: Regarded as a tool, digital technology does not really do anything; it does not straightforwardly act on the material world. Unlike steam engines or wheels, it performs no particular physical task. Its scope of action is unspecified and unrestricted. Second: It is a social technology. Its appeal does not reside only in its instrumental means and uses, but in its power to connect us into a single global nervous system. This is in part because information technology is a technology of intentional responses. By responding to us in terms of information and by making our responses themselves the subject of measurement, digital devices engage us personally and in kind. These features thus represent the twin promises of total effectiveness and total responsiveness; that is, digital technology is both a new tool for measurement and a new medium of being in touch with others. It is this synthesis of measurement with medium – of quantitative analysis with social reality – that is most distinctive and transformative about it.

Chapter 2 is dedicated to a discussion of the conditions which enabled the emergence of research evaluation systems. Beyond the general phenomena that characterize modern society, such as rationalization, capitalism, or bureaucratization, there are also other elements that should be included as constitutive conditions for evaluative power. The chapter goes on to provide a systematic account of economization and metricization. It argues that these are the two main forces that shape contemporary academia, having enabled the emergence of research evaluation systems. Economization is defined as promoting the idea that science’s economic inputs and products should be utilized for bolstering the economy, while metricization reduces every aspect of science and social life to metrics. The varied impacts of these two forces are described by means of an expansive account of the social processes, values, logics, and technologies of power that undergird today’s research evaluation systems. This chapter therefore lays the foundations for one of the book’s key claims. This is that metrics should be understood as merely a symptom rather than the cause of the difficulties confronting academia today.

Chapter 6 deals with the main areas in which the evaluation game transforms scholarly communication practices. Thus, it focuses on the obsession with metrics as a quantification of every aspect of academic labor; so-called questionable academia, that is the massive expansion of questionable publishers, journals, and conferences; following the metrics deployed by institutions, and changes in publication patterns in terms of publication types, the local or global orientation of research, its contents, and the dominant languages of publications. Finally, the chapter underlines the importance of taking a geopolitically sensitive approach to evaluation games that is able to account for differences in the ways in which the game is played in central versus peripheral countries, as well as in the ways in which such practices are valorized, depending on the location of a given science system. Such differences are not only the result of differential access to resources and shifting power relations but also, as argued in the book, of the historical heritage of capitalist or socialist models in specific countries and institutions.

In Stage 5, the journey moves to meaning relations within sentences, introducing such topics of quantification (including generalized quantifiers), representing events and states, temporal, aspectual, and modal distinctions in semantics, and propositional attitude reports.

Underground Mathematics tells the story of subterranean geometry, a forgotten discipline that developed in the silver mines of early modern Europe. Seven case studies describe how an original culture of accuracy and measurement paved the way for technical and scientific innovations. Based on a variety of original manuscripts, maps and archive material, it recounts how knowledge was crafted and circulated among practitioners in the Holy Roman Empire and beyond. Specific chapters deal with the material culture of surveying, map-making, expertise and the political uses of quantification. By carefully reconstructing the religious, economic and cultural context of mining cities, Underground Mathematics argues that practical mathematics fruitfully interacted with the world of humanists, scholars and courts. In doing so, it contextualizes the rise of a culture of accuracy and quantification from 1500 to 1800. Subterranean geometry thus proves relevant to broader discussions in the history of science, technology, and knowledge.

Chapter 2, ‘A Mathematical Culture: The Art of Setting Limits’ brings the reader directly into early modern metal mines. The birth of a vernacular culture of geometry is described, detailing the daily work of craftsmen and insisting on the materiality of measuring practices. Surveys, carried out in public during solemn ceremonies, were a keystone of mining laws. The chapter exposes a central hypothesis of this book: At the time, mathematical accuracy acquired a dual meaning. Measurements had to be precise enough to solve intricate technical problems, while at the same time respecting procedures codified in mining customs and laws. Far from being a mere tool, geometry was meant to ensure trust; it was ubiquitous and pervaded many aspects of a miner’s life. In the early years of the Protestant Reformation, Lutheran pastors actively fostered the rise of practical mathematics. Mathematical and religious rationality were equated, making subterranean geometry accurate in a third way, this time as an expression of divine will. The omnipresence of measurements, combined with their legal and religious recognition, ultimately conferred a higher status to the discipline.

Underground Mathematics tells the story of subterranean geometry, a forgotten discipline that developed in the silver mines of early modern Europe. Seven case studies describe how an original culture of accuracy and measurement paved the way for technical and scientific innovations. Based on a variety of original manuscripts, maps and archive material, it recounts how knowledge was crafted and circulated among practitioners in the Holy Roman Empire and beyond. Specific chapters deal with the material culture of surveying, map-making, expertise and the political uses of quantification. By carefully reconstructing the religious, economic and cultural context of mining cities, Underground Mathematics argues that practical mathematics fruitfully interacted with the world of humanists, scholars and courts. In doing so, it contextualizes the rise of a culture of accuracy and quantification from 1500 to 1800. Subterranean geometry thus proves relevant to broader discussions in the history of science, technology, and knowledge.

This chapter introduces the concepts and methods used by the other chapters in the volume, using the long-standing problem of estimating the land carrying capacity of classical Attica to illustrate the benefits of probabilistic modelling. We begin by surveying the development of techniques for managing uncertainty in ancient history (1.1) and past work on the specific problem of Attica’s land carrying capacity (1.2). The chapter then turns to theoretical questions about the nature of uncertainty and probability (1.3), introducing the ‘subjectivist’ conception of probability as degree of belief, a theoretical framework that makes probability a powerful tool for historians. We go on to discuss the procedure of using probability distributions to represent uncertainty about the actual value of a quantity such as average barley yield in ancient Attica (among other variables relevant to the problem of land carrying capacity) (1.4), the need to be aware of cognitive biases that distort our probability judgements (1.5), the use of Monte Carlo simulation to combine uncertainties (1.6), the potential problem of epistemic interdependence (1.7), the interpretation of the outputs of a Monte Carlo simulation (1.8), and the use of sensitivity analysis to identify the most important sources of uncertainty in a simulation. The appendix illustrates model code in R.

In this chapter, I emphasise and try to explain the importance of historical demography for economic history, but also its relative neglect by ancient historians until very recently. Demography involves a range of quantitative measures that are useful both as proxies for economic performance and in comparison. Population sizes and trends also have explanatory power for past economic changes. Some general points about the relationship between population and economy, and what changed and what stayed the same over the last millennium BCE are followed by some more specific observations about the major periods of Greek history. The importance of environmental factors is particularly emphasised, and urbanization is a persistent theme.

Chapter 5 examines the fate of transformative demographic governance in the eighteenth century, beginning with the proliferation of demographic numbers and political-arithmetical arguments in a range of print genres: sermons and sacred histories, literary essays and satires, newspapers and pamphlets. These encouraged a new demographic subjectivity in their audiences – a sense of participation in demographic processes – that raised questions of agency and its limits. Some concerned the constraints of environment, conceived of in discussions of medicine and public health as a partially manipulable “situation”; others concerned the power or responsibility of the public to foster the improvement of populations through projects such as Societies for the Reformation of Manners or Coram’s Foundling Hospital. In colonial contexts, debate raged over the relationship between climate, health and race, and – as Benjamin Franklin’s work shows – over both the relative fecundity of America and Europe and the ideal racial composition of the colonies and the world. By the later eighteenth century, demographic governance had become a point of contention between colony and metropole.

The introduction states the argument and introduces key concepts, including ideas of multitude and political arithmetic, as well as important distinctions, including that between quantitative and qualitative aspects of demographic thought. It briefly surveys past approaches to the history of population as an idea, paying particular attention to Michel Foucault. It then outlines the book’s episodic approach; explains its geographical and temporal scope (England, Ireland and the British Atlantic, circa 1500 –1800); characterizes the range and types of sources used; and describes its focus on the emergence of population as an object of knowledge and qualitative manipulation (referred to as demographic governance), as well as on questions of the locus and limits of power over population (referred to as demographic agency).

The litigation between the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and several water districts in southern California may address the unclear ownership of aquifer pore spaces directly. In this case, the tribal parties have claimed a federally reserved right to aquifer pore spaces as a component of the mineral estate of their reservation. This directly addresses whether parties may have exclusive rights to store water in an aquifer or must share storage rights with others. The resolution of this question has important implications to aquifer unitization, including defining the necessary parties to the agreement and the allocation of shares. The court has several potential methods of resolving this question, which would determine the basis of public and private rights to the use of the aquifer.