MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W172450825

Geochemical characterization of alleged Mallorytown glass (c. 1839-40) in the Royal Ontario Museum and its distinction from contemporary upstate New York glassware

2003· article· en· W172450825 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
J. Victor Owen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Archaeology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlass recyclingLimeArchaeologyComposition (language)Soda-lime glassNew englandArtHistoryMaterials scienceMetallurgyComposite materialLawPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemical analysis shows that several of the alleged Mallorytown glass pitchers, bowls, and tumblers in the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) have distinctive potassic soda-lime (K+Na+Ca-rich) compositions that resemble waste glass from the factory site, thereby supporting their attribution to this, the first-known Canadian glassworks. The composition of one object in particular, the Burnham bowl, so closely resembles this waste glass that it can now be considered to be an authenticated Mallorytown artifact. Although potassic soda-lime cullet and waste glass have also been recovered from the contemporary Redford and Redwood glassworks in upstate New York, their compositions tend to differ both from one another and from Mallorytown glass. Some of the cullet associated with these glassworks, however, consists of low-K soda-lime glass, and at Redwood, this was used to make window panes and, on an ad hoc basis, tableware. In addition, some shaped low-K glass objects were recovered from the Mallorytown site, suggesting that this type of glass might also have been used to make tableware such as one of the alleged Mallorytown pitchers in the ROM's collection. Based on its composition, however, it seems likely that this particular pitcher was made at Redwood.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.151 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ArchaeologySame topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207