Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1890s, Toronto's city engineers participated in a modernizing impulse that included the widespread use of asphalt pavement. The engineers' recommendation of asphalt for Toronto's particular traffic circumstance demonstrates an ideological commitment to the belief that asphalt promoted aesthetics and hygiene in the physical and human space of the city, in spite of the pavement's ruinous effects on certain Asphalt facilitated the appearance in the streets of fashionable cyclists, in a city suffering the deleterious effects of industrialism. In short, asphalt symbolized modernism in the As a man is judged by his linen, a city is judged by its streets. Charles Mulford Robinson, 1899 Resume Dans les annees 1890, les ingenieurs municipaux de Toronto ont ete engages dans un elan de modernisation qui menait a l'adoption a grande echelle du pavage en asphalte. Leur recommandation d'utiliser l'asphalte, dans la situation particuliere de la circulation a Toronto, temoigne de leur adhesion a la croyance que ce revetement contribuerait a l'esthetique et l'hygiene de l'espace physique et humain de la ville, malgre ses effets devastateurs sur certaines rues. L'asphalte a favorise l'apparition de cyclistes a la mode dans les rues d'une ville secouee par l'impact de l'industrialisation. Bref, l'asphalte symbolisait le modernisme dans les rues. « Comme on juge l'homme a son habit on juge une ville a ses rues. » Charles Mulford Robinson, 1899
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".