Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Extract]In the Speaker's Chambers of the parliament of Victoria in Melbourne Australia, at a little after 1 :30 in the afternoon of Friday 9 October 1891, parliamentary housekeeper George Pearse advised parliamentary doorkeeper Frederick Davis, parliamentary engineer Thomas Jeffery, and parliamentary Sergeant-ar-Arms George Upward of a parliamentary predicament. "The mace," Pearse declared (Cis gone" ("Mace Board" 127), Today, we know very little more about the disappearance of the Victorian Legislative Assembly's Speaker's mace than what was conveyed in Pearse's terse assessment of the situation some 113 years ago. The dearth of verifiable information surrounding the loss of the mace has, however, been counterbalanced, indeed overbalanced, by a surfeit of theories, accusations and rumours regarding the whereabouts of the 1.5 metre gold-plated and richly chased sceptre that symbolised the constitutional rights of the Victorian population and the authority invested in the office of Speaker in the Victorian Legislative Assembly.' The early investigation of the mace's theft came up with four possible solutions: Thomas Jeffrey had stolen the mace; one of the workmen contracted to finish a basement extension in the north wing of Parliament House had stolen the mace; an anonymous, and probably non-professional, thief had stolen the mace; a member of parliament, possibly inebriated, had taken the mace on a lark and had subsequently lost it. A little over year after the disappearance of the parliamentary device, the press came up with a fifth, and far more shocking, solution in November of 1892. It was widely and volubly touted in the press and on the streets that prostitutes and parliamentarians had taken the mace to a brothel in Little Lonsdale Street where it was used for less-than-proper parliamentary proceedings, and then left in the brothel. It is this 6fth,most unlikely yet most persistent, solution that fascinates me.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".