Bibliographic record
Abstract
In some respects the story of Studebaker is the same as that of every car company except General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. It produced some notable cars, was considered a leading firm at times, and survived longer than most. Yet Studebaker failed like nearly every other car maker. This book wants to explain why. Thomas E. Bonsall is the author of identification guides and popular histories of the Chrysler 300, Firebird, GTO, Mercury and Ed-sel, Avanti, Pontiac, and Lincoln. This volume is not a buff book, but neither is it a scholarly history. In a narrative, chronological structure, Bonsall tracks the company's rise and fall. The Studebaker brothers started as carriage builders in 1852, entered the auto industry as the maker of bodies for the Pope Company's electric taxis in the late 1890s, and began building automobiles after 1900. They grew slowly until the 1920s and then struggled to survive the Great Depression. Studebaker revived during the war and emerged with high hopes, which turned into a desperate struggle for existence for a decade after 1955. Studebaker ceased making cars in its original factory in South Bend, Indiana, in December 1963. An assembly line in Hamilton, Ontario, operated until March 1966, while non-auto activities continued as Studebaker-Worthington until 1978.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".