MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115087456 · doi:10.1098/rsnr.2007.0034

Assistants to enlightenment: William Lewis, Alexander Chisholm and invisible technicians in the Industrial Revolution

2008· article· en· W2115087456 on OpenAlex
Larry Stewart

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNotes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoon City Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndustrial RevolutionEnlightenmentScottish EnlightenmentManagementArt historyHistorySociologyArtPhilosophyEpistemologyArchaeologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Artisans, assistants and technicians in laboratories remain largely anonymous amid the rapidly expanding experimental practice of the eighteenth century. Where their activities can be traced, it is apparent that the binary conceptions of scholar and craftsman, of philosopher and practitioner, hardly held during the first industrial revolution. Who actually did the work in the early-modern laboratory remains an important issue. In the case explored in this article, William Lewis, chemical lecturer, and Josiah Wedgwood, pottery manufacturer, both employed the skill and expertise of Alexander Chisholm. Chisholm moved among industrial innovators, gathering the knowledge of workmen, and promoted the experimental method ultimately employed in the Wedgwood manufactory.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.175 · 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