MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989308433 · doi:10.7202/800299ar

Scientific Sovereignty: Canada, the Carnegie Institution and the Earth's Magnetism in the North

2009· article· en· W1989308433 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gregory A. Good

Bibliographic record

VenueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHistory and Developments in Astronomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCarnegie Institution of WashingtonWest Virginia UniversityNational Endowment for the HumanitiesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDominionContext (archaeology)SovereigntyPolitical scienceInstitutionGovernment (linguistics)ObservatoryRivalryGeological surveyAgency (philosophy)LawSociologyArchaeologyGeographyGeologySocial sciencePoliticsGeophysicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1905, magnetic survey work began under the auspices of the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism of the Carnegie Institution of Washington directed by Louis Agricola Bauer. The DTI, wanting world-wide coverage, wished to make observations in Canada but this raised the question of sovereignty. Although the DTI was not a government agency, it was foreign. The impact of its work in Canada was to stimulate geophysical research by the Canadian Meteorological Service and by the Dominion Observatory. This research was undertaken in the context of interdepartmental rivalry which finally resulted in control of the field by the Dominion Observatory.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0290.031
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.177 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and MedicineSame topicHistory and Developments in AstronomyFrench-language works237,207