Bibliographic record
Abstract
is an archival detective story, with elements of suspense, surprise, and mystery a tale of feuding, character assassination, and moral turpitude. It begins prosaically enough. Early last year the National Archives learned that a 15-year-old schoolboy had found some volumes that appeared to deal with early U. S. consular affairs in Russia. They had been found several years before, it was said, near the town of King of Prussia, not far from Philadelphia, in a hollow tree. Supposedly the books had been wrapped in oilcloth, which had protected them from serious damage. This report immediately raised a number of questions. Were the documents Federal records? If so, how had they strayed from Federal custody? And what about the story of the hollow tree? Could oilcloth have adequately protected them from the elements ? What were the documents, exactly? What was their provenance? Inquiries by the National Archives ascertained that the volumes contained copies of letters sent to Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams. With this additional information it was possible for the staff of the (then) Foreign Affairs Branch of the National Archives to begin a preliminary investigation. The names of the correspondents suggested that the documents had been written during the first quarter of the nineteenth century. Some of them, at least, were apparently copies of letters sent from a consular post in Russia. This indicated that they would have been records maintained at the post, rather than originals received by the President or the Secretary of State in Washington. A search of the State Department records in the National Archives revealed that consulates had been established in Arch-
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".