MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896279387 · doi:10.29173/cons29345

THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND THE GREAT EXHIBITION OF 1851

2018· article· en· W2896279387 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samantha Kallen

Bibliographic record

VenueConstellations · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt History and Market Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionPrestigeEvent (particle physics)EmpireHistoryBritish EmpireMedia studiesSociologyVisual artsArt historyArtArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Great Exhibition of 1851 in London was a large, highly significant affair that brought the innovations and industries of the world together under one roof. While it was indeed a global event, it has been argued, especially by people at the time, whether or not the exhibition was held for the great benefit of the British. This paper will argue that the primary motivation for the British was indeed their own benefit by looking at British prestige, what they had to offer the exhibition, and what they stood to gain by hosting such an event.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstellationsSame topicArt History and Market AnalysisFrench-language works237,207