MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061397962 · doi:10.1353/can.2012.0002

Some Thoughts on John C. Weaver's The Great Land Rush and the Making of the Modern World, 1650-1900

2012· article· en· W2061397962 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Elizabeth Jane Errington

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedalPublishingQueen (butterfly)Gold rushArt historyHistoryEnvironmental ethicsMedia studiesSociologyLawPolitical scienceArchaeologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CHR is publishing the papers presented at the François-Xavier Garneau Prize roundtable, which takes place during the Canadian Historical Association's annual congress. The François-Xavier Garneau Medal, awarded every five years, is the most prestigious of the CHA prizes, honouring an outstanding Canadian contribution to historical research. The roundtable provides the opportunity for historians in the field to discuss the winning study's contribution from multiple perspectives. The 2010 winner was John C. Weaver's The Great Land Rush and the Making of the Modern World, 1650-1900 , published by McGill-Queen's University Press, 2003. La CHR publie les interventions faites lors d'une table ronde organisée pour la remise de la médaille François-Xavier-Garneau, qui s'est tenue lors de la rencontre annuelle de la Société historique du Canada. Attribuée tous les cinq ans, la médaille François-Xavier-Garneau est le plus prestigieux prix de la SHC . Elle honore une contribution canadienne remarquable à la recherche en histoire. La table ronde donne aux historiens spécialistes l'occasion de discuter de la contribution du livre gagnant selon plusieurs perspectives. En 2010, le gagnant fut The Great Land Rush and the Making of the Modern World, 1650-1900 , de John C. Weaver, paru chez McGill-Queen's University Press en 2003.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicArchaeology and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207