On the Contribution of David J. M. Hooson to the Geographical Study of the Soviet Union
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Notes 1. David J. M. Hooson, ‘The Distribution of Population as the Essential Geographical Expression’, The Canadian Geographer 17 (1960) pp. 10–20. 2. Ibid., pp. 16–17. 3. David J. M. Hooson, A New Soviet Heartland? (Princeton, NJ: Van Norstrand Co. 1964) p. 12. 4. David J. M. Hooson, ‘The Middle-Volga – An Emerging Focal Region in the Soviet Union’, The Geographical Journal 126 (1960) pp. 180–190. 5. Ibid., p. 180. 6. Ibid., p. 185. 7. David J. M. Hooson, ‘The Soviet Union and the Geography Student’, The Canadian Geographer 6 (1962) pp. 78–82. 8. Ibid., p. 82. 9. David J. M. Hooson, ‘A New Soviet Heartland?’, The Geographical Journal 128 (1962) p. 19. 10. Hooson, A New Soviet Heartland? (note 3) p. 121. 11. Ibid., p. 123. 12. Ibid., p. 126. 13. David J. M. Hooson, The Soviet Union – A Systematic Regional Geography (London: University of London Press 1966). 14. Roy E. H. Mellor, ‘Review of Dewdney, J. C.’, Geography of the Soviet Union, Geography, 53 (1968) pp. 440. 15. Hooson, The Soviet Union (note 13) pp. 342–343. 16. Ibid., p. 346. 17. David J. M. Hooson, ‘The Outlook for Regional Development in the Soviet Union’, Slavic Review 31 (1972) pp. 536–554 and 571–573. 18. Ibid., p. 553. 19. Personal Communication with Robert North, 10 July 2008. 20. Personal Communication with James Bater, 17 July 2008. 21. Personal Communication with Leslie Dienes, 10 July 2008. 22. Personal Communication with Craig ZumBrunnen, 18 July 2008. 23. The findings were published in: Michael Bradshaw and Jessica Pendergrast, ‘The Russian Heartland Revisited: An Assessment of Russia's Transformation’, Eurasian Geography and Economics 46 (2005) pp. 83–122. Further information on the project and its outputs can be found at: <http://www.le.ac.uk/geography/research/projects_bradshaw_NRH.html>.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it