MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337347074 · doi:10.1111/hic3.12306

Technology in the British Industrial Revolution

2016· article· en· W2337347074 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory Compass · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndustrial RevolutionHistoriographyIndustrialisationCreativitySteam enginePeriod (music)Turning pointHistory of technologyProduct (mathematics)Technological changeEngineeringPolitical scienceHistoryAestheticsArtificial intelligenceArtComputer scienceMechanical engineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Technology and technological innovation has been one of the crucial features of the historiography of the Industrial Revolution. In the early nineteenth century, this focus on the “machinery question”, or the effects that machines had on the condition of labourer. Around 1900 academic historians began to explore the nature and causes of technological innovation, with Max Weber's thesis being the most influential. In the postwar period, optimistic assessment saw the technological creativity of the Industrial Revolution as crucial turning point in the history of Western economic growth. The period after 1970 has seen much broader fields of inquiry, including in product innovation, proto‐industrialization, and in industries outside the canonical group of cotton, iron, and steam engines.

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 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 score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.129 · 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