MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Actor-Network Theory and the Practice of Aviation Archaeology

2015· article· en· W1552809176 on OpenAlex
Michael Deal, Lisa M. Daly, Cathy Mathias

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Conflict Archaeology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropology: Ethics, History, Culture
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersU.S. Air ForceU.S. Army
KeywordsAviationConflict archaeologyInterpretation (philosophy)ArchaeologyHistoryPerspective (graphical)BattlefieldHistorical archaeologyMaterial culturePrehistoric archaeologyMaritime archaeologySociologyEngineeringVisual artsPrehistoryArtComputer scienceAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

World War II aviation archaeology is a dynamic subfield of conflict archaeology, which has developed through the need to conserve twentieth-century military heritage resources. Like battlefield archaeology (: iii–vii), it has only recently emerged as a credible area of academic study. Theoretical development in both areas has been dominated by a military, historical-particularist viewpoint, which often ignores the role of society in warfare. Actor-network theory, which stresses the link between society and technology, provides an opportunity to broaden the theoretical perspective of aviation archaeology research. Recent archaeological work at a downed USAAF aircraft site near Gander, Newfoundland, is presented as a case study to illustrate the enlistment of a network of stakeholders, material culture, and textual and audio-visual evidence in the interpretation of a single site.

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.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.020
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.330 · 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