MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158834677 · doi:10.1098/rsnr.2020.0069

Taylor White's ‘paper museum’ (1725–1772): understanding the scientific work of an unpublished naturalist

2021· article· en· W3158834677 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Céline M. Stantina

Bibliographic record

VenueNotes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWhite (mutation)NaturalismPaintingWork (physics)HistoriographyWhite paperArt historyPublicationSociologyHistoryLibrary scienceLawPolitical sciencePhilosophyComputer scienceEpistemologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From approximately his election as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1725 to his death in 1772, as the London barrister Taylor White (1701–1772) moved up the legal ladder, he commissioned, gathered, and organized a tremendous collection of zoological paintings now held in the Blacker Wood Collection of McGill University Rare Books and Archives. As White did not publish any major work during his lifetime, he has been substantially ignored in the historiography of science. By investigating the considerable painting compilation available in the collection, this article aims to understand White's scientific practice as a naturalist, working primarily from non-textual primary sources. The taxonomical work comprises the global arrangement of the plates, and the referencing practice, as well as the limited correspondence available on the English barrister, and these help to position the anonymous Taylor White within the world of naturalists at that time.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0130.016
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.177 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNotes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of ScienceSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207