Bibliographic record
Abstract
From Jeremy Tatum I read with interest the obituary of Bernard Pagel (Edmunds 2007). I worked only briefly as a student at Herstmonceux under the guidance of Dr Pagel several decades ago, but I still remember his great encouragement and help. However, Dr Pagel was not the only astronomer to recall the tripartite division of Gaul. In the course of a paper on microwave spectroscopy in the Astrophysical Journal (Tatum 1986) I wrote that: “Figure 5, like Gaul, est omnis divisa in partes tres.” In my original manuscript I had followed this with the reference in the usual style (Caesar 45 BC) and had included it in the reference list at the end of that paper as I do in this. The quotation did appear in the published paper, but much to my regret (and annoyance) the reference did not. In my case, the quotation did not indicate my great erudition and breadth of scholarship — quite the opposite, in fact! The words are from the very first sentence of De Bello Gallico, and I never got beyond that first sentence. I never succeeded in passing Latin at O-level, and consequently (unlike Bernard Pagel) I missed any opportunity of going to Cambridge.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.272 | 0.143 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".