MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Henry A. Ward and the Recovery of the Santa Rosa, Colombia, Meteorite

2005· article· en· W2035023245 on OpenAlexaff
Howard Plotkin

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Sciences History · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and Beyond
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteoriteConfusionBattleHistoryAstrobiologyArchaeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Henry A. Ward (1834-1906), the celebrated founder and owner of Ward's Natural Science Establishment, one of the most interesting and significant North American scientific institutions in the late 19th century, was also perhaps the shrewdest and most enthusiastic meteorite collector of his day. Toward the end of his career, at age 68, he became very interested in a large (612.5 kg) iron meteorite in Santa Rosa, Colombia that was highly venerated by the local townspeople. In an effort to obtain the meteorite in whole or in part—and hopefully clear up the scientific confusion surrounding it—he journeyed to Santa Rosa in the winter of 1906. His attempt to retrieve the meteorite led to a clever plan with local officials, a daring nighttime removal, and a heated legal battle with the national police, but eventually he was allowed to leave Colombia with a large piece of the meteorite. His subsequent investigation of the meteorite is examined, as is our present understanding of it and its relationship to two meteorites found nearby, Rasgatá and Tocavita. Ward's actions shed light on attitudes and practices in natural history collecting at his time, and how scientists grappled with the problem of interpreting meteoritic structure.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Sciences HistorySame topicEnvironmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and BeyondFrench-language works237,207