MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906166658 · doi:10.1093/jahist/jay281

“Follow the North Star: A Participatory Museum Experience,” Conner Prairie, Fishers, Ind.

2018· article· en· W2906166658 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas Cauvin, Joan Cummins, David Dean, Andreas Etges

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American History · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcreCitizen journalismSpanish Civil WarHistoryStar (game theory)Local historyGeographyArchaeologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inspired by a reenactment at a Young Men's Christian Association camp in Ohio in the mid-1990s, staff at the living history museum Conner Prairie, just north of Indianapolis, developed their own Underground Railroad program. Since 1998 more than ninety thousand people, many of them students, have taken part in “Follow the North Star.” For about ninety minutes, visitors become a group of fugitive slaves on the Underground Railroad in central Indiana in 1836, heading North to freedom in Canada. Created by Eli Lilly in 1934, Connor Prairie covers nearly one thousand wooded acres today and features attractions such as Indiana's oldest brick house, a Civil War Journey, and the Lenape Indian Camp. “Follow the North Star” is offered each year in April and November. Up to forty actors and staff are involved on a “200-acre stage.” In contrast to most of the other programs the museum offers, “Follow the North Star” requires visitors to be at least twelve years old. General visitors can take part in the evenings, while student groups participate in the daytime.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.002

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American HistorySame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207