Bibliographic record
Abstract
The modern academic dress of American universities and of some in Canada is based on or departs from the 1895 Intercollegiate Code of Academic Costume, which lives on as the Academic Costume Code. Researchers who describe a North American university’s cap and gown often look into the history of the Code and review the familiar story of its beginnings; they also uncover forgotten elements of the Code’s development. Five of the authors in this volume describe the Code in their articles. The editors believe that instead of printing each history in its respective author’s paper, inde-pendently of the others, a single paper that synthesizes the main points from each article into one makes a stronger whole and eliminates repetition. This paper is largely the work of Donald Drakeman and Stephen Wolgast. Drakeman’s work is taken from his paper ‘Peculiar Habits’; Wolgast’s work comes from his paper ‘King’s Crowns’ and additional research. Their observations are supplemented by the work of Robert Armagost, David Boven, and John Grant. To help identify the work of each author, footnotes are preceded by his initials (unless he is otherwise identified). This article was prepared by Wolgast; as much as possible the authors’ original writing remains unaltered except where transitions are necessary. Footnotes are nearly untouched except to add fuller citations. [Excerpt].
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".