Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines histories of repair and maintenance in the early years of North American telephony, when the telephone industry was dominated by two monopolistic and closely associated telephone companies -the American Telephone & Telegraph Company in the United States (henceforth AT&T) and the Bell Telephone Company of Canada (henceforth Bell Canada or Bell). 1 It focuses in particular on the repair and maintenance practices of Bell Canada and its manufacturing arm, Northern Electric, between the 1880s and the 1930s.Established in 1880 with capital and expertise supplied by AT&T, Bell Canada quickly acquired all but one of the telephone patents in Canada and a monopoly charter from the Canadian government.By 1887, the challenge of Canada's vast 1 AT&T was also commonly called "Bell" in the United States.For the purposes of clarity, I distinguish between the US telephone company and the Canadian telephone company by referring to them as AT&T and Bell or Bell Canada, respectively.In instances when I refer to these two companies together, I will use the term "Bell companies".The relationship between AT&T and Bell Canada was defined by a complex share-holding arrangement, in which AT&T's percentage declined from 48.8% in 1885 to 0% in 1975.Unlike other regional Bell operating companies, Bell Canada retained its ownership and had its own research and development labs and its own manufacturing branch, Northern Electric Company Limited.Bell Canada's relationship with Northern Electric paralleled AT&T's relationship with its equipment manufacturer, Western Electric in the United States, and the two manufacturing companies similarly shared information and technical components as well until the mid-1960s.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.771 | 0.861 |
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".