MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2234650629 · doi:10.14713/njs.v2i1.29

History and Land Use Change: The New Brunswick Copper Mining and Processing Complex, Rutgers University, and Johnson & Johnson

2016· article· en· W2234650629 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard L. Porter

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Jersey Studies An Interdisciplinary Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopper miningColonialismArchaeologyCopperCopper mineHistoryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is the end result of a historical study of the New Brunswick Copper Mining and Processing Complex, which was formerly sited within what is now the City of New Brunswick in Middlesex County, New Jersey.The New Brunswick Copper Mining and Processing Complex was active during the final decades of the colonial period and included both extractive and water-powered industrial components that were focused within the area bounded on the east by the Raritan River, north by Seminary Place, west by College Avenue, and south by Hamilton Street/Johnson Drive. This area was redeveloped during the 19th and 20th centuries, with the lands formerly utilized for the mining and processing of copper eventually coming to be occupied by Rutgers University and Johnson & Johnson. The discovery of a mine shaft formerly associated with this early copper mining and processing complex during the demolition of a building within the Johnson & Johnson Corporate Headquarters led to the commissioning of this study by Johnson & Johnson.This paper provides a discussion of the history of the New Brunswick Copper Mining and Processing Complex and of the subsequent changing land uses that ultimately led to the current presence of Rutgers University and Johnson & Johnson.

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)0.000
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 score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Jersey Studies An Interdisciplinary JournalSame topicAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryFrench-language works237,207