MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1020271015

Guide to MC001 - The Walter L. Oblinger, Jr. Papers

2013· article· en· W1020271015 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jona Whipple

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Walter L. Oblinger Jr. Papers, 1935-1990\nWalter L. Oblinger (July 5, 1914-April 11,1990) graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law in 1939 with an LL.B. At Chicago-Kent he met Josephine Kneidle Harrington (February 14, 1913-September 27, 1998) and the two were married in 1940. Upon graduation, Walter entered the FBI. He was appointed to Pittsburgh, then San Antonio, Washington D.C, and Detroit. At the beginning of World War II, Walter was put in charge of the FBI division on German spies in the Detroit area. During his tenure with the FBI, Walter was involved in several infamous cases, including the hunt for and subsequent arrest of Hans Peter Krug, a German POW who escaped from a British camp in Canada, the subsequent arrest of Krug’s safehouse contacts, and the investigation of the Illiopolis munitions plant explosion.\nIn 1954, Walter and his wife Josephine opened a law practice in Springfield, Illinois (Oblinger & Oblinger Attorneys at Law) where they practiced until their retirement in 1985. In 1969, Oblinger was awarded a J.D. from Chicago-Kent when his original LL.B. degree was phased out in favor of the adoption of the J.D. as the first law degree. Josephine served as a Republican Illinois State Representative from 1979-1985. In 1985, Walter began writing his autobiography of the time he spent in the FBI. The completed book, Admissions of an FBI Man, was published by Carlton Publishers in 1989.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207