MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004676033 · doi:10.21083/irss.v44i0.5883

“Ours is a Court of Papers”: Exploring Scotland and the British Atlantic World using the Scottish Court of Session Digital Archive Project

2020· article· en· W3004676033 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James P. Ambuske

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Scottish Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicScottish History and National Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)ScholarshipMetadataHistoryGeneral partnershipSupreme courtLibrary scienceNational archivesLawWindsorDigital scholarshipFormative assessmentSpecial collectionsMedia studiesPolitical scienceSociologyWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay describes the Scottish Court of Session Digital Archive Project (SCOS), a multi-institutional collaborative research initiative into Early America and the British Atlantic world. Developed by the digital scholarship team at the University of Virginia Law Library, in partnership with colleagues at the University of Edinburgh, SCOS explores everyday life in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries through Session Papers, the printed documents submitted to Scotland’s supreme civil court during litigation. The project provides scholars, genealogists, and the public with open-access digital copies of Session Papers held by the UVA Law Library, the Library of Congress, and other institutional partners. By digitizing these documents, contextualizing them with comprehensive metadata, and providing users with interpretative entry points, SCOS is designed to foster new research on this formative period of Scottish, British, and American history.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0260.027
Scholarly communication0.0240.012
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Scottish StudiesSame topicScottish History and National IdentityFrench-language works237,207