MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580438008 · doi:10.15273/pnsis.v47i1.3374

COMMUNICATING KNOWLEDGE TO NEW AUDIENCES: VICTORIAN POPULARIZERS OF SCIENCE

2012· article· en· W2580438008 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Nova Scotian Institute of Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEvolution and Science Education
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultDarwin (ADL)EliteDominance (genetics)Scientific revolutionPopular scienceQuarter (Canadian coin)Charles darwinSociologyEpistemologyHistoryScience educationPhilosophyLawDarwinismPolitical scienceAncient historyEngineeringBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past historians have tended to explain the existence of a cult of science from about 1850 to 1890 as the result of the work of elite scientists such as Darwin, Huxley, and Tyndall. But this explanation leaves out two crucial factors: the role of popularizers who were not practitioners of science and the occurrence of a communications revolution in the second quarter of the 1800s that established the conditions necessary for what happened in the second half of that century. Once these factors are added to our account of the cult of science, a very different picture emerges, one that forces us to reconsider the standard story of the dominance of the scientific scene by figures like Darwin, Huxley, and Tyndall.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.016
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.226 · 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