MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2332394537 · doi:10.1093/ahr/118.2.506

ROBERTA M. STYRAN and ROBERT R. TAYLOR. This Great National Object: Building the Nineteenth-Century Welland Canals.

2013· article· en· W2332394537 on OpenAlexaffabout
Frank Leonard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject (grammar)HistoryExplicationMasonryArchaeologyVisual artsArtComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the late 1970s Roberta M. Styran and Robert R. Taylor have worked in heritage groups and produced several books concerning elements of the history of the Welland Canal, which finally crossed the Niagara peninsula in 1833 to link Lake Ontario with Lake Erie. In This Great National Object: Building the Nineteenth-Century Welland Canals, the authors depart from a traditional organization that separates the building of the three canals—the first in 1824–1833, the second in 1840–1845, and the third in 1871–1882. Instead, they present a series of longitudinal studies of discrete components of construction such as route selection, locks, and water control, as well as the more expected categories of management and labor. The uninterrupted account of each element through the building of the three works facilitates juxtaposition of images of plans, technical drawings, the occasional “landscape,” and, for the third canal, photographs that, alongside careful explication, illuminate sweeping changes that seemed piecemeal to contemporaries. For example, over the course of sixty years, canal alignment shifted markedly toward the Niagara River. While the number of locks decreased from forty to twenty-six, the size of each, now built with masonry rather than wood, almost tripled.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical Review→Same topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis→French-language works237,207→