MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267553640

From field to fact: William E. Logan and the geological survey of Canada.

2007· article· en· W2267553640 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian C. Shipley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaGeological surveyField (mathematics)State (computer science)GeographyHistoryRegional scienceArchaeologyGeologyGeophysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation reexamines William E. Logan's pioneering geological survey of the colonial province of Canada, 1842-1869, inspired by new historical perspectives on science, geography, exploration, cartography, gender, the body, and state formation. I begin with the rapid development of geological surveying and mapping in 1830s Britain, and locate Logan in two key worlds: the gentlemanly scientific circles of metropolitan London and the coal fields of industrial South Wales.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.013
Science and technology studies0.0120.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistory of Science and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207