MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324726618 · doi:10.1525/tph.2011.33.4.127

Review: <i>Collections and Objections: Aboriginal Material Culture in Southern Ontario</i>, by Michelle A. Hamilton

2011· article· en· W2324726618 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Public Historian · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconCitationDownloadArt historyLibrary scienceHistoryMedia studiesSociologyWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book Review| November 01 2011 Review: Collections and Objections: Aboriginal Material Culture in Southern Ontario, by Michelle A. Hamilton Collections and Objections: Aboriginal Material Culture in Southern Ontario by Michelle A. Hamilton. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2010. 352 pp.; clothbound, $95.00; paperbound, $34.95. Alexandra Lewis-Lorentz Alexandra Lewis-Lorentz Central Washington University Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar The Public Historian (2011) 33 (4): 127–129. https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2011.33.4.127 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Alexandra Lewis-Lorentz; Review: Collections and Objections: Aboriginal Material Culture in Southern Ontario, by Michelle A. Hamilton. The Public Historian 1 November 2011; 33 (4): 127–129. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2011.33.4.127 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe Public Historian Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2011 by The Regents of the University of California and the National Council on Public History. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.163 · 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