MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745032988 · doi:10.1080/02722011.2017.1358802

Beth A. Robertson, <i>Science of the Seance: Transnational Networks and Gendered Bodies in the Study of Psychic Phenomena, 1918–1940</i> <b>Science of the Seance: Transnational Networks and Gendered Bodies in the Study of Psychic Phenomena, 1918–1940</b> , by Beth A. Robertson, Vancouver, UBC Press, 2016, 256 pp., CAN$95.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-7748-3349-3

2017· article· en· W2745032988 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychicParanormalPsychoanalysisSociologyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It’s a rare treat when I get to indulge my interest in the paranormal through such a well-researched and argued work as Beth A. Robertson’s Science of the Seance. The scholarly literature isn’t exa...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207