MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895991364 · doi:10.1525/phr.2018.87.4.726

Review: A Short History of Denver by Stephen J. Leonard and Thomas J. Noel

2018· article· en· W2895991364 on OpenAlexaff
Elaine Naylor

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Historical Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconCitationArt historyHistoryArtLibrary scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book Review| November 01 2018 Review: A Short History of Denver by Stephen J. Leonard and Thomas J. Noel A Short History of Denver. By Stephen J. Leonard and Thomas J. Noel. (Reno, University of Nevada Press, 2016. xviii + 184 pp.) Elaine Naylor Elaine Naylor Mount Allison University Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Pacific Historical Review (2018) 87 (4): 726–727. https://doi.org/10.1525/phr.2018.87.4.726 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Elaine Naylor; Review: A Short History of Denver by Stephen J. Leonard and Thomas J. Noel. Pacific Historical Review 1 November 2018; 87 (4): 726–727. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/phr.2018.87.4.726 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentPacific Historical Review Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2018 by the Pacific Coast Branch, American Historical Association2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.075

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific Historical ReviewSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207