Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Wide Web is useful for the scholarly needs of urban historians. Not only can it present information in the traditional print format, but it can also provide information in the visual form that urban scholars are usually concerned with. Writing about social geography, contested public spaces, the material culture of the inarticulate, physical planning, and environmental injustice without iconographie materials is difficult. For this the web is ideally suited. Indeed, it adds three new weapons to our traditional arsenal. The web can display moving images, provide sound, and enable hyperlinks to related materials—all options unavailable in print. With the appearance of the peer-reviewed electronic publications, Maria Balshaw, Anna No-taro, Liam Kennedy, and Douglas Tallack, eds., City Sites: Multimedia Essays on New York and Chicago, 1870s-1930A and Philip Ethington, "Los Angeles and the Problem of Urban Historical Knowledge,"2 the world wide web has moved firmly into the realm of publishing respectability with formatting appropriate to the new medium.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.178 | 0.199 |
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".