MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014025992 · doi:10.7202/015821ar

Letters to Lord Byron

2007· article· en· W2014025992 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen Minta

Bibliographic record

VenueRomanticism on the Net · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryConversationClassicsIndependence (probability theory)Ancient historyPhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of unpublished letters among the papers of the London Greek Committee in the National Library of Greece throw particular light on the significant period, in 1823, when Byron was considering how best he might contribute to the cause of Greek independence. The letters discussed here are: (1) Alexandros Mavrokordatos from Tripolitza, to Byron in Genoa, dated 2/14 July 1823 (vol. v, fo. J) ; (2) James Hamilton Browne from Tripolitza, to Byron in Kefalonia, dated 13 September 1823 (vol. v, fo. H); and (3) Edward John Trelawny from Tripolitza, to Byron in Kefalonia, dated 14 September 1823 (vol. v, fo. I). Browne’s letter contained two interesting enclosures, which are also considered here: (4) ‘Substance of a conversation held with Colococtroni in his palace’ (vol. v, fo. K), and (5) ‘Substance of a conversation which took place with the Officers of Mavrocordato, who remain here’ (vol. v, fol. L). I also look briefly at the following letters: (6) Spiridion Trikoupis from Hydra, to Byron in Kefalonia, 15/27 August 1823 (vol. v, fol. C); (7) Andreas Louriotis from Hydra, to Byron in Kefalonia, 15/27 August 1823 (vol. v. fol. D); and (8) Mavrokordatos from Hydra, to Byron in Kefalonia, 15/27 August 1823 (vol. v, fol. E).

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)0.015
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 score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1820.129

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRomanticism on the NetSame topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207