MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906614601 · doi:10.7202/1055454ar

Mobility and Memory: British Architects and Their Tools, ca. 1700-1780

2019· article· en· W2906614601 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Deans Romariz

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterial Culture Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Art and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGentryAmateurArchitectureObject (grammar)Visual artsHistorySociologyAestheticsArtComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objects such as tools play an essential role in the history of architecture, yet little scholarly attention has been paid to how they inform the history of the profession. Britain’s object-based culture after the Restoration is particularly revelatory. Both professional and amateur architectural practice shifted away from the gentry as increased accessibility to resources encouraged avocation. This essay looks at objects that testify to a culture of architectural practice beyond professionals and gentlemen, as tools and materials to facilitate drawing became more affordable and portable.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterial Culture ReviewSame topicHistorical Art and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207