MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956047083 · doi:10.1115/1.2009-apr-6

The Genesis of the Steamboat

2009· article· en· W2956047083 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert O. Woods

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStyle (visual arts)Quarter (Canadian coin)HistoryThe artsArt historyEngineeringVisual artsArtArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses that it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that the Founding Fathers brought about the American Revolution and then faded into some sort of oblivion. The work described here occurred a quarter of a century before Robert Fulton demonstrated the Clermont, the boat that led to his being regarded as the inventor. Steamboat development was a logical evolution of Newcomen’s engine, which had been reduced to practice around 1710. Fitch and Rumsey both used some variant of the Newcomen engine, although each started with a different concept. Franklin’s report had the effect of setting back development by several years because he argued convincingly that paddle wheels would not work. Rumsey’s death in 1792, shortly after having delivered a lecture to Britain’s Society of Mechanic Arts, ended the exchange, although the controversy goes on to this day. The Rumseian Society that was formed in the 1780s to rise funding was re-established in 1906 and exists today in Shepherdstciwn, where a replica of Rumsey's boat has been constructed. The steamboat was finally raised to financial success in August 1807 by Fulton.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.151 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMechanical EngineeringSame topicAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryFrench-language works237,207