MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1557802437 · doi:10.46430/phen0037

Introduction to the Bash Command Line

2014· article· en· W1557802437 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Milligan, James Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Programming Historian · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary History and Strategy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScripting languageInterface (matter)Line (geometry)Programming languageGraphical user interfaceHuman–computer interactionOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This lesson will teach you how to enter commands using a command-line interface, rather than through a graphical interface. Command-line interfaces have advantages for computer users who need more precision in their work, such as digital historians. They allow for more detail when running some programs, as you can add modifiers to specify exactly how you want your program to run. Furthermore, they can be easily automated through scripts, which are essentially recipes of text-based commands.

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)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2880.210

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Programming HistorianSame topicMilitary History and StrategyFrench-language works237,207