MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945700895 · doi:10.29173/cons29365

The Thirst for Tea

2019· article· en· W2945700895 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueConstellations · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMateriality (auditing)NarrativeOrder (exchange)Tea partyGovernment (linguistics)AestheticsPolitical scienceSociologyHistoryLawBusinessArtPoliticsLiteraturePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper seeks to examine the smuggling of tea during the long eighteenth century through several facets. In order to understand why smuggling occurred throughout the eighteenth century, one must take into consideration the laws which necessitated the need for smuggling, as well as the economic environment of Britain throughout the century. In addressing the widescale phenomena of ritualized tea drinking, one can comprehend why tea, specifically, was selected to be smuggled, admittedly among a myriad of other valuable commodities. It is also critical to explore the materiality of tea ritual, as well as the smuggling process, as objects are a crucial element to the narrative and development of tea and its associated illicit activities. Bringing these components of examination together, one may begin to understand why tea was smuggled during the eighteenth century, and how the British government consequently worked to end smuggling altogether.

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.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.214
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