Bibliographic record
Abstract
The individual has been an enduring figure in American history, claiming prominence even in the turbulent decades of the nineteenth century characterized by conflict between industrialists and collective unions. Andrew Carnegie captured the American press’ headlines during this period. However, his appearance in American publications, such as the New York Times and Harper’s Weekly, frequently coincided with news coverage of his adversary, the Knights of Labor (KOL). This conceptual binary provides an opportunity to explore the place of the individual and conversely the group in American history. Neither Carnegie nor the KOL escaped censure by the mainstream media or by extension, the American public. But despite Carnegie’s immigrant background and endorsement of his Scottish heritage, the media portrayed the industrialist as distinctly American while they depicted the KOL as distinct from Americans. Historiography attributes the dichotomy between representations of the elite and the working class to a disparity of capital. However, claims to patriotism had to be accepted by the mass public. Focus should be redirected to the publicized accounts of Carnegie’s public commitments which coincided with American conceptions of civic involvement and reinforced this individual’s place in American society. In contrast, the media’s portrayal of the KOL’s activities, which reflected their members’ interests, emphasized the union’s collective unity and insularity. In exploring definitions of patriotism and American identity, the contrasting representations of Carnegie and the Knights of Labor speak to the importance ascribed to individualism in America and the expectation that Americans pledge allegiance to a single, national Union.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".