MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607042795

Counting on Customers: John Campbell, 1806-1891, Middlesex County Handloom Weaver

2012· dissertation· en· W2607042795 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Deborah Livingston-Lowe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural History and Identity Formation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManagementSociologyEngineeringGerontologyEconomicsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

John Campbell (1806-1891) was one of about 370 Scottish handloom weavers who brought his technical and professional skills to Ontario in the mid- to late-nineteenth century. From 1859 to 1885, Campbell recorded customer orders for close to 54,000 yards of cloth in a 302-page account book, a document which reveals the relationship between producers and consumers in nineteenth-century rural Ontario. This thesis is a quantitative and qualitative examination of Campbell’s inputs and outputs using his account book, looms and textiles. The analysis of Campbell goes beyond the current historiography of handloom weavers by utilizing evidence from documentary sources and material culture contributing to the larger understanding of a self-employed artisan’s production. The case study of one weaver with this level of detail has not been performed to date and provides an important link for the partnership between handloom weavers and their customers. While Campbell’s customers provided a necessary infrastructure for him to operate by participating in pre- and post-weaving production, Campbell’s presence satisfied his customers’ needs not only for cloth, but a way of life that maintained economic and social stability for men and women in south-western Ontario. This thesis conveys the layers of complexity of weaver, technology and customers at the end of an era for handloom weaving in Ontario.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicCultural History and Identity FormationFrench-language works237,207