MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1481936702

"Towers of Silence": The Rise and Fall of the Grain Elevator as a Canadian Symbol

2006· article· en· W1481936702 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Patricia Vervoort

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSymbol (formal)ArchitecturePraiseElevatorAdmirationHistoryEngineeringArchaeologyLinguisticsArtLiterature
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The grain elevator, an ordinary industrial building of American origin, has over the years emerged as a popular symbol of Canadian life, albeit one that is now vanishing from the landscape. Both the tall, wooden country elevators in Prairie towns and the concrete terminal elevators of port cities have taken on this symbolic role, although praise for “the grain elevator” has often not differentiated the two. The reason for their iconic status is somewhat elusive. The admiration expressed by European architects and historians was the foremost reason that Canadian architects and architectural historians began to identify the terminal elevator as an important element of Canadian architecture. Wooden country elevators have evoked description as “prairie sentinels” or “prairie cathedrals”. The appearance of both types on Canadian stamps and currency has given formal recognition to their symbolic value. As part of Canada’s economic and agricultural histories, as well as the country’s architectural and cultural histories, grain elevators not only are tied to the special knowledge relevant to their use, but also generate shared meaning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0310.032
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.159 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207