MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2780936321

Katherine Stinson Otero : A Brief Biography

2008· article· fr· W2780936321 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lori Ann Overly Burrup

Bibliographic record

VenueUNM’s Digital Repository (University of New Mexico) · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAviation History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiographyHistoryArt history
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Katherine Stinson, the fourth female licensed pilot in America, was a pioneer in aviation and proved by example that flying could not be limited by gender. She represents an early feminist position by her actions rather than words. Katherine Stinson was a pioneer in aviation, unafraid to fly to fulfill her dreams. She began her aviation career eleven years before Charles Lindbergh took his first flying lesson and sixteen years before Amelia Earhart became the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic. A daring aviator, she achieved recognition as the “first” to accomplish many feats. She was the first woman to fly at night, to loop the loop, and the first person to sky write. Additionally, she set endurance and distance records and brought the spectacle of air travel to both Japan and China. Furthermore, she was the first woman in the United States, as well as the first person in Western Canada to officially deliver airmail. At a time when women were not allowed to vote, Stinson demonstrated the capabilities of women through her daring exploits as a pilot. Although she is well known by students of aviation history as one of the foremost aviators in America, she remains generally unrecognized today. Katherine Stinson’s flying career lasted only six years, but she made monumental strides for aviation and ranked as one of the most influential female pilot for the entire pre-World War I period.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.007

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 head0.180
Teacher spread0.154 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUNM’s Digital Repository (University of New Mexico)Same topicAviation History and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207