MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239759675 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14647218

Defining a research tool : an object based study of a group of inter-related photographic objects attributed to the James Inglis Studio (1866-1884) in the McCord Museum, Montreal

2021· preprint· en· W4239759675 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michelle Macleod

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhotography and Visual Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStudioObject (grammar)PortraitBiographyValue (mathematics)Art historyVisual artsPhotographyArtIndex (typography)HistoryComputer scienceWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis is a case study of 39 disbound album pages with 579 albumen photographic portraits, most attributed to James Inglis (1835-1904), an accompanying index book, four related documents, and two notes concerning the objects’ provenance. This object-based examination of these objects is intended to serve as a model for photographic and social historians when presented with inter-related, multi-part photographic objects. This extensively illustrated case study, which is supported by four appendices, reveals aspects of Montreal’s social history in the late nineteenth century and facilitates the objects incorporation into the McCord Museum’s collection. A brief biography and information on Inglis’ studio are included to contribute to the study of his career and nineteenth century portraiture in Montreal. While the exact function of these objects is still uncertain, this thesis explores their overall intellectual and historical value and is intended to foster further research in the collection.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0120.017
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotography and Visual CultureFrench-language works237,207