MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883269274 · doi:10.1115/1.2004-feb-3

A Practical Hero

2004· article· en· W2883269274 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F. A. Lyman

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanics and Biomechanics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHEROSteam engineMillState (computer science)Work (physics)EngineeringManagementLawMechanical engineeringComputer sciencePolitical scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article illustrates history and evolution of hero turbine. In 1830s, William Avery, a mechanic, designed and built a Hero turbine that could manage significant, useful work. It powered several gristmills and sawmills in New York State, and even drove a locomotive. Ambrose Foster and William Avery were granted a patent on September 28, 1831 for their improvement in the Steam Engine, commonly called the Reacting Engine. The Avery engine probably had other problems such as noise, vibration, the difficulty in sealing the rotary coupling, and the problem of speed regulation. These problems would have been difficult to solve with 1830s technology. Although one is said to have driven a mill for 20 years, the Avery engine probably had problems that were too difficult to solve in the 1830s. The only memorial to William Avery around Syracuse is a New York State historical marker on Route 92 near his family’s farm in Oran. It claims that the steamboat he built and launched there in 1823 became the first on the Erie Canal. Avery also built the machinery for the first steamboat on Lake Ontario, as well as for several other lake steamers.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1080.042

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMechanical EngineeringSame topicMechanics and Biomechanics StudiesFrench-language works237,207