MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1724573025

Dwelling Places and Social Spaces: Revealing the Environments of Urban Workers in Victoria Using Historical GIS

2013· article· en· W1724573025 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick A. Dunae, Donald Lafreniere, Jason Gilliland, John Lutz

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaWestern UniversityVancouver Island University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoomGeographyEthnologyUrban historyCartographyHumanitiesEconomyArchaeologyEconomic historyHistoryArtEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pacific Northwest underwent rapid economic growth in the late 19th century and cities on both sides of the Canada/US border burgeoned. The building boom was sustained by a large cohort of tradesmen and skilled labourers who lived in modest cabins, tenement blocks, boarding houses, and residential hotels. Most of these urban wageworkers were unmarried. They left few records of their experiences outside the job site or union hall. In this case study of Victoria, British Columbia circa 1891, we deployed a historical geographical information system (HGIS) to reconstitute the urban residential and social space of about 2,000 otherwise elusive working men. Our research framework combines qualitative methods that are familiar to historians and quantitative methods favoured by geospatial researchers. By integrating both qualitative and quantitative data, we are able to represent the multiple spatial conditions experienced by Victoria’s wageworkers in the early 1890s. In the process, we repopulated the city and reconstructed a largely vanished urban landscape. A primary objective of the essay is to demonstrate how gis can be used as a research tool and new epistemology in the field of labour history.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207