MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Frontier Friends, 1828–1836

2018· book-chapter· en· W2913698449 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nancy A. Hewitt

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of North Carolina Press eBooks · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligion, Gender, and Enlightenment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrotherSisterFrontierCousinGenealogyHistoryGender studiesSociologyLawReligious studiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite Friends’ rules against marrying a deceased sister’s husband, Amy Kirby married Isaac Post in 1828 and became stepmother to Hannah’s two children. Escaping disciplinary action, she moved to Isaac’s farm in Ledyard, New York, and immersed herself in the Scipio Hicksite Meeting. While Amy forged fast friendships with young married Quakers with whom she shared pregnancy and motherhood, she wrote regularly to family and friends back home. She remained especially close to her cousin Mary Robbins who married Isaac’s brother Joseph. Amy loved life in Ledyard, but the death of Hannah and Isaac’s son Edmund in 1830 and of Isaac’s brother Edmund in 1832 made the distance from Jericho loom large. As the Post family continued to grow, Amy cultivated her medical skills and nursed friends and traveling Quakers as well as family. The Posts were also active in Genesee Yearly Meeting (GYM), established in 1834 to meet the needs of Friends from Central New York to the Midwest and Upper Canada. GYM members testified against slavery, sought even greater equality for women in the meeting, and advocated the rights of Indians. Then in 1836, as many Friends migrated further west, the Posts relocated to Rochester, New York.

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)0.000
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.003

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 venueUniversity of North Carolina Press eBooksSame topicReligion, Gender, and EnlightenmentFrench-language works237,207