MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124205056 · doi:10.1353/scp.2007.0003

The Decline and Fall of Bottom Notes, op. cit., loc. cit., and a Century of the Chicago Manual of Style

2006· article· en· W2124205056 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oliver B. Pollak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStyle (visual arts)TasteCitationScholarshipHistoryFunction (biology)Writing styleLiteratureLawArtPolitical sciencePsychologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sometimes-maligned footnote is a hallmark of scholarship. The Chicago Manual of Style has been the historian's standard for 100 years. The function of the footnote remains stable, but style changes. Latinate loc. and op. cit. give way to almost plain English, though ibid. survives. Location and nomenclature change as bottom notes turn to footnotes and then endnotes. Other disciplines turn to internal rather than external citations. This essay links the major changes in citation format over the last 300 years to intellectual taste and technological innovation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207