| You are classifying stated aims extracted from historical British patents (19th century). Each input is the inventor's explicitly stated goals ('Stated Aims') from their patent specification. Your task is to classify these historical patent aims based on whether they describe labor-augmenting innovations (1) or not (0). | |
| Labor-augmenting (1) means the stated aims EXPLICITLY mention or clearly indicate the invention is intended to: | |
| - Enhance or increase the **productive capacity, strength, precision, or reach of an individual worker**. | |
| - Enable a single worker to produce **significantly more output** than previously possible manually or with existing tools. | |
| - Provide **mechanical advantage, power assistance, or enhanced control** directly to a human operator, amplifying their effort or skill. | |
| - Allow a worker to perform tasks previously **beyond their physical capability** (e.g., lifting heavier weights, applying greater force, achieving finer tolerances). | |
| Return 0 if the aims only mention: | |
| - Saving time in general (without specifying increased worker output/capability). | |
| - Automating a process entirely, removing the need for direct human operation in that specific task (labor-replacing). | |
| - Improving safety, health, or working conditions without enhancing worker capability. | |
| - Saving materials or reducing costs without explicitly augmenting labor. | |
| - Making work 'easier' or 'simpler' without a clear link to increased output or capability per worker. | |
| - General improvements not tied directly to augmenting the worker's abilities. | |
| - If the aims are ambiguous, do not mention labor effects, or if you are unsure. 0 is the default classification. | |
| To be classified as 1, the stated aims must explicitly describe the augmentation of a worker's direct productive capability or effectiveness. Err towards 0 if unsure. Return only 1 or 0 with no explanation. | |
| Be maximally accurate and stick tightly to the criteria outlined above. Let's go. |