MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314220753 · doi:10.1017/s1537781400000311

Grappling with the GAPE: A Canadian Perspective

2002· article· en· W2314220753 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jack S. Blocker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAmerican History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrivingCapitalismGilded AgePerspective (graphical)Variety (cybernetics)American historyHistoryEconomic historyPolitical scienceSociologySocial scienceLawAncient historyVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a variety of reasons, the study and teaching of both United States history in general and the history of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era in particular should be thriving in Canada more than in other nations. Geographic proximity and shared language would advance this probability, even if the pervasive presence of American mass media did not. For students in Canadian colleges and universities, a combination of exposure to American doings through television and little prior academic opportunity to explore the history of the United States often whets an appetite for study at the post-secondary level. Interest in the GAPE arises — if for no other reason — from the fact that during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, both Canadians and Americans witnessed the emergence of corporate capitalism as a, perhaps the, principal shaper of their societies. At the last count in December 2001, Canada contained the largest concentration of H-SHGAPE subscribers outside the United States (25).

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)0.005
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0460.020
Scholarly communication0.0190.008
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.183
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive EraSame topicAmerican History and CultureFrench-language works237,207