MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013523486 · doi:10.1177/000944550704300401

Kolkata and China

2007· article· en· W2013523486 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tansen Sen

Bibliographic record

VenueChina Report · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Maritime and Colonial Histories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaTheme (computing)LegendQuarter (Canadian coin)HistoryCapital (architecture)Ancient historyMedia studiesGender studiesSociologyArt historyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The articles and book reviews included in this issue of China Report resulted from symposiums held in New York and Kolkata in 2006–07.1 The theme of these symposiums was the Chinese Indian community in Kolkata and featured Rafeeq Ellias's moving documentary on the Chinese Indians called The Legend of Fat Mama. Two issues were evident to the participants and audiences of these symposiums. First, very few people knew about the history and experiences of the Chinese community in India. Second, although exchanges between Kolkata, which was named the capital of British India in 1772, and China seem to have started in the last quarter of the eighteenth century and flourished during nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, little attempt has been made to study these interactions. This issue is the first step in redressing some of these deficiencies. Only two aspects related to the ‘unexplored’ links between Kolkata and China are highlighted in this collection. The first three articles and the two book reviews focus on the Chinese Indian community in Kolkata. The fourth and fifth articles examine the travelogues of Bengalis who visited China during the first half of the twentieth century.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.004

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChina ReportSame topicGlobal Maritime and Colonial HistoriesFrench-language works237,207