MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908520353 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2018.0049

Between Counterfeit Coin and Genuine Article: From Copying to Originality in Tit-Bits

2018· article· en· W2908520353 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas Vranken

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAmerican History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopyingCounterfeitReprintNothingOriginalityComputer scienceGeorge (robot)Competitor analysisLaw and economicsSociologyLawEpistemologyPhilosophyBusinessPolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceSocial scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1881, the first issue of George Newnes's journal Tit-Bits declared itself "openly and avowedly" committed to a program of radical extraction. Whereas other journals might reprint the odd piece from their competitors, Tit-Bits would contain nothing that had not already appeared elsewhere. Yet over the course of the 1880s Tit-Bits gradually began printing ever-larger quantities of original material. This essay draws attention to the various personal, legal, and social factors that enabled this transformation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.269
Teacher spread0.251 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicAmerican History and CultureFrench-language works237,207