RETROSPECT: ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF PRESERVING AND PUBLISHING THE HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DURING THE LAST QUARTER OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, many state historical societies along the eastern seaboard intensified their efforts to preserve early records and promote knowledge of the past. On the whole, this work proceeded under the guidance of patrician conservatives who were proud of their descent from stalwart forebears and determined to keep alive the memory of their accomplishments. History, they believed, had a crucial significance for a society that was confronted with profound social and economic dislocations. Resentful that their traditional leadership in politics had been challenged, and fearful of being swamped by the masses from below, patrician conservatives often found satisfaction in the past? particularly the more distant past of the colonial and Revolutionary periods. This veneration of earlier times and men found expression in many ways: honoring the beloved war dead; teaching American history in the schools; erecting monuments, statues and historical markers; producing commemorative public pageants; and preserving those remaining sites and buildings that were associated with what they must have considered a more heroic age.1 Important vehicles for the spread of historical knowledge were the quarterly journals launched by these societies: the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (1877), the William and Mary College Quarterly (1st ser., 1892), the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (1893), the South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine (1900), and the Maryland Historical
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".