The <i>Wisconsin Magazine of History</i>: A Case Study in Scholarly and Popular Approaches to American State Historical Society Publishing, 1917–2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the history of American historical societies by focusing on the Wisconsin Magazine of History (WMH), published by the State Historical Society of Wisconsin (now known as the Wisconsin Historical Society). The first half of the paper relates the history of American state historical societies and their publishing ventures until the founding of the WMH in 1917. The first American state historical societies were private organizations of elite men, and their publications were meant to notify similar organizations of their proceedings. The advent of public state historical organizations opened membership to a much broader segment of society, but the professionalization of the study of history in the late nineteenth century brought about a more rigorous approach to the writing of history. Throughout the twentieth century, the SHSW and similar organizations have sought to balance an appeal to a broad public and a scholarly approach to history in publications such as the WMH. By examining issues of the WMH from 1917 to 2000, as the author has done in the second half of the paper, one can see how the publication, with audiences clearly in mind, tilted toward one side of this balance or the other in its design and content.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Scholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
| gpt | Scholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".