Report of the Special Committee on Publications Using a Largely Mechanical Method of Selection of Types (Art. 10.5(b)) (especially under the <i>American Code</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Special Committee on Publications Using a Largely Mechanical Method of Selection of Types (Art.10.5(b))(especially under the American Code) was established at the XVIII International Botanical Congress (IBC) in Melbournein 2011, with the mandate to develop a list of works that are deemed to have followed the American Code and any similar cases in which the method of type selectionis “considered to be largely mechanical”. This Report reviews the origins of, and problems associated with, the provision that permits a designation of type using a largely mechanical method to be superseded. The Committee concluded that use of the American Code and its predecessors was so widespread in the first two decades of the 20th century that no comprehensive list of works following these Codes could be generated. Instead it proposed that six criteria be adopted that will permit determination of works that can be taken to have used a largely mechanical method of type selection. Two of these are general and should apply until the American Code was completely abandoned around 1935; (1) inclusion of any statement to that effect; (2) adoption of a provision of the American Code contrary to the provisions of the International Rules. The other four seek to identify those persons who can be considered to have followed a largely mechanical method; although many followers of the American Code persisted in its use throughout the 1920s, not all did, and these criteria are limited to publications prior to 1921, when the Type‐basis Code was published; hence all publications by the following categories of person; (3) signatories of the 1904 “Philadelphia Code” (all also signatories of the American Code); (4) persons who had publicly declared that they followed the American Code; (5) employees and associates of the New York Botanical Garden; and (6) employees of the U.S. federal government. This Report provides the supporting documentation for the proposals that are also published in this issue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.061 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".