MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992861056 · doi:10.2307/3092286

More Than They Promised: The Studebaker Story

2002· article· en· W1992861056 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bruce E. Seely, Thomas E. Bonsall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American History · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryLibrary scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American HistorySame topicAfrican history and culture studiesFrench-language works237,207