MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603339740

The United States of America: A Cornerstone of the World Gem Diamond Industry In the 20th Century

2001· article· en· W1603339740 on OpenAlexaffvenue
A. A. Levinson, Frederick A. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscience Canada · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMineralogy and Gemology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceEconomyArtEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout the 20th century, the United States has been the primary consumer of gem-quality diamonds. From the early 1900s to 1975, it consumed at least 50% of the world's diamond supply by both weight and value; from the late 1970s to 1999, its proportion of world consumption varied from about 40-67% by weight and about 28-48% by retail jewellery value, Japan is the only other country to qualify as a major consumer of gem diamonds in the 20th century and this has occurred only since 1972. As we enter the 21st century, gem diamond consumption continues its historic pattern of extreme reliance on the buying habits of one nation, i.e., the United States. Resume Durant tout le 20e siecle, les Etats-Unis d'Amerique ont ete le premier consommateur de diamant de joaillerie. De 1900 a 1975, ce pays a utilise au moins 50 % de la production mondiale, tant en poids qu'en valeur; de 1970 a 1999, sa part de la consommation mondiale de bijou a fluctuee de 40 a 67 % en poids, et de 28 a 48 % en valeur au detail. Le Japon est le seul autre pays qui peut etre qualifie de consommateur important de diamant de joaillerie au 20' siecle, mais seulement depuis 1972. Depuis le debut du 21 e siecle, la consommation de diamant de joaillerie continue d'afficher un profil historique d'extreme dependance des habitudes de consommation d'un unique pays, i.e., les Etats-Unis d'Amerique.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscience CanadaSame topicMineralogy and Gemology StudiesFrench-language works237,207