MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621041449 · doi:10.1177/0968344516651308

‘A more creditable way’: The discovery of active sonar, the Langevin–Chilowsky patent dispute and the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors

2017· article· en· W2621041449 on OpenAlexaff
David Zimmerman

Bibliographic record

VenueWar in History · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNavySonarRoyal CommissionSubmarineCommissionHistorySnapshot (computer storage)LawEngineeringManagementPolitical scienceOperations researchOceanographyArchaeologyComputer scienceGeologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 19 July 1926, the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors held a hearing on the claim of Professor Paul Langevin and Monsieur M. Constantin Chilowsky for compensation from the British Admiralty for their discovery of sonar. The hearings provide unique insights into the origins and early research of active sonar and an important snapshot of the Royal Navy’s anti-submarine warfare research in the mid-1920s. Moreover, the hearing reveals much more than the details of a major technological discovery; it is also an important case study of the relationship between inventors and governments during and after the First World War.

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
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.176 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWar in HistorySame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207