MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320150390 · doi:10.1093/jahist/96.4.1194

Buying Respectability: Philanthropy and Urban Society in Transnational Perspective, 1840s to 1930s. By Thomas Adam. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009. xii, 239 pp. $39.95, ISBN 978-0-253-35274-3.)

2010· article· en· W2320150390 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Douglas McGarvie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American History · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElitePower (physics)Subject (documents)SociologyConsumption (sociology)Gender studiesPolitical scienceMedia studiesLawSocial sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thomas Adam has written an interesting but largely unpersuasive book about the role of an elite transatlantic culture that shaped philanthropy in Europe and the United States between the 1840s and the 1930s. Adam narrows his subject in “classifying philanthropy as part of conspicuous consumption” (p. 8), engaged in by “new” (aspirational) and “old” (established) elites through sponsoring social housing, museum, and library projects. Adam essentially makes three arguments: (1) that elites within Europe (England and Germany) and North America (Canada and the United States) participated in an intercultural transfer that shaped conceptions of private action for the public good, and the means of pursuing them, on both sides of the Atlantic; (2) that established elites in each of the subject communities engaged in philanthropic activity primarily as a means of gaining social status and exercising social power; and (3) that aspiring elites and certain groups of people traditionally excluded from power positions (women, Catholics, Jews) were able to gain both social status and power by engaging in philanthropy—though women, Catholics, and Jews found greater accommodation from the established elites than did the nouveau riche.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American HistorySame topicAustralian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207