Notice bibliographique
Résumé
At the very first ICHC in 1990 I was invited to present a paper on Kirkpatrick MacMillan’s invention of the bicycle, supposedly in 1839. I had no reason to doubt the ‘facts’ of the story, my concern was that it should have been seen as a dead end. It was very clear that MacMillan had nothing to do with the invention of the bicycle as it was to develop after 1860 and the claim that he was ‘the inventor of the bicycle’ was fundamentally mistaken. However, as I looked at the available evidence, its paucity was very clear, whatever the story was, what was commonly understood as fact was largely myth. Although many were convinced that the MacMillan story was bogus, no-one then went on to publish anything that developed the ‘case against’ the MacMillan story beyond what had been said in 1990. Indeed, some sixteen years later the opposite happened when Andrew Ritchie’s definitive survey of the evidence relating to Kirkpatrick MacMillan, Gavin Dalzell and Thomas McCall was published. While Ritchie was assiduous in assembling the evidence, the survey was far from objective, effectively creating a case for the defence. Thereafter, Ritchie’s work has been used to propagate the popular acceptance of the story. Also in the last fifteen years there has been a significant increase in cycling activity in the UK. The MacMillan story comes up, unquestioned, almost every time a significant event is held in Scotland, indeed even the National Museum still propagates it. The time has surely come for the evidence that Ritchie presented to be reviewed from the position of those who question the veracity of the MacMillan story. This paper considers Ritchie’s approach to the topic and the analysis it offers. It distils the approach to what I hope will be a far larger publication that, read beside Ritchie’s work, aims to provide the balance that is required to understand the nature and validity of the evidence that he presented. This is a reassessment of what evidence there is to suggest that rear driven bicycles were invented in the South-West of Scotland in c1840. It takes a contrary position to that of Andrew Ritchie and much popular history.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,127 | 0,035 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».