MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2299826723 · doi:10.33915/etd.8708

An engineer's story: Ernst Behrend and the Hammermill Paper Company, the first quarter century.

2010· dissertation· en· W2299826723 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)HistoryManagementEngineeringSociologyEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1898, Ernst Behrend arrived in America controlling approximately Z1,000,000 to build a paper mill. He and his father, Moritz Behrend, had secured investments from a small pool of German entrepreneurs who owned other paper mills in Prussia. The Behrend family had been among the pioneers in producing sulphite paper made from wood pulp rather than cotton rag, and they wanted to transfer the technology to America. Starting Hammermill Paper Company in America proved to be more demanding than planning had foretold. The sulphite process was successful, but the Behrends faced numerous challenges in their new business venture. Ernst Behrend, as president of the company, overcame all demands to make Hammermill so profitable that the German investment group undertook a hostile stock takeover of the company in 1909, leaving Behrend a paid employee in the business he had founded. By 1916, the business was consistently profitable, though, allowing Behrend to secure an American financier who would underwrite purchasing Hammermill from the German owners. However, the purchase was fraught with obstacles. The German owners would not agree on a price that Behrend and his banker considered reasonable until after the First World War was raging in Europe. Although America was still a neutral, Behrend had to engage in extraordinary measures to consummate the deal. The German investors had moved the stock shares out of Germany before the war, for example, and they were inaccessible in England, compelling Behrend to purchase the plant and company assets rather than company stock. But this required an exchange of documents and payment in gold between Germany and the U.S. at a time when normal international business activities were out of the question. Behrend took advantage of an offer by the German parties to the transaction to use a submarine to carry proxy votes from Europe, and payment from America, in order to avoid an Allied blockade of Germany. In the meantime, U.S. Justice Department investigators suspected that Behrend was acting as an agent for the German government, and that the Hammermill purchase had been fraudulent, meant to give the impression of a legitimate transaction while Germans still controlled the company. The situation culminated in 1919 when Behrend defended his patriotism and the credibility his company at a hearing conducted by the Alien Property Custodian.s office of the Justice Department. By 1920, Behrend and the Hammermill purchase stood vindicated.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0120.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→French-language works237,207→