MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337056941 · doi:10.1080/14791420.2016.1173220

Preaching dynamite: August Spies at the Haymarket trial

2016· article· en· W2337056941 on OpenAlexafffund
Ian E. J. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication and Critical/Cultural Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsDynamiteFlaggingCommitFalse accusationLawPolitical scienceHistoryComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the dynamite at the 1886 Haymarket Square bombing trial and in the courtroom address of accused bomb conspirator August Spies. The analysis focuses on the crucial object of the Haymarket events—the dynamite bomb—as much as it focuses on Spies's words. I argue that the material presence of dynamite interacted with polysemy and paradox when Spies preached dynamite. Spies delved into the polysemy of the term dynamite by drawing attention to the word's multiple meanings, and he constructed turnaround arguments warranted by dynamite to reverse the accusation of conspiring to commit violence back onto the state.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.328 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication and Critical/Cultural StudiesSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207