MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1530150995 · doi:10.17077/0003-4827.1375

Historic Preservation for Professionals

2009· article· en· W1530150995 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paula A. Mohr

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Iowa · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicOral History, Memory, Narrative Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

diary" for many Amish communities.One thinks of a slower-paced blog or wiki.The Budget began in 1890 and was used historically by a range of Amish and Mennonite groups; Die Botschaft was founded in 1976 to address a more restricted Old Order audience.Nolt's chapter is followed by Karen Johnson-Weiner's chapter on Amish publishing houses, which were started to meet a demand for Amish school textbooks.Gordonville, Pennsylvania, reprints standard textbooks, such as the McGuffey Readers, while Pathway Publishers (Aylmer, Ontario, and LaGrange, Indiana) produces original literature that is selfconsciously Old Order.Amish people communicate with one another in many ways with little dependence on mass media to do it for them.The Amish and the Media does well in tracing the current state of media treatment of Amish communities and the ways the Amish shape their own modes of communication.Reaching back further in time would strengthen the collection; the complex relationship of media and Amish did not begin with Witness.For this task, there is David Weaver-Zercher's The Amish in the American Imagination (2001) and David Walbert's Garden Spot: Lancaster County, the Old Order Amish, and the Selling of Rural America (2002).In any event, the book under review will prepare readers for the next Amish media feeding frenzy, whatever it turns out to be.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

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 studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2140.070

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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of IowaSame topicOral History, Memory, Narrative AnalysisFrench-language works237,207