MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325797394 · doi:10.1086/ahr.117.2.564

Bradford Martin . The Other Eighties: A Secret History of America in the Age of Reagan . New York: Hill and Wang. 2011. Pp. xix, 242. $26.00.

2012· article· en· W2325797394 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gil Troy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican Political and Social Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Once upon a time, following Ronald Reagan's retirement, historians were surprisingly silent about his presidency. Disdain for Reagan was so ubiquitous among scholars that even spending time with his papers, let alone taking him seriously historically, was unseemly. At the time, Reagan scholarship was not for the faint‐hearted—or the untenured. Then, gradually, came glasnost. More and more historians starting understanding that Reagan was the greatest American president since Franklin D. Roosevelt—in the Time magazine person‐of‐the‐year meaning— for better or worse. That phase culminated with Sean Wilentz's The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974–2008 (2008). Wilentz, whom journalists have repeatedly dubbed a “liberal historian,” pronounced Reagan significant and not as destructive as he first seemed. Inevitably, the reaction to the counterreaction has begun. Bradford Martin returns the historical conversation to where it began. Martin set out to prove that not every book about the 1980s “turns into a Reagan book” (p. ix). Still, the subtitle is misleading. This history is not so secret. It describes the protest movements that, Martin shows, were louder, larger, and more lasting than we remember.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1430.061

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicAmerican Political and Social DynamicsFrench-language works237,207