MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Review

2012· article· en· W4242382859 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David N. Lucsko

Bibliographic record

VenueMichigan Historical Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAmerican History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsState (computer science)LawAppealMonopolySociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

134 The Michigan Historical Review the Klan’s circle and linked the Klan’s social and cultural fascination to its political appeal. Left without enough examination are key issues such as Prohibition enforcement and a state anti-Catholic school bill, as well as other state and national political concerns. Nonetheless, by focusing primarily on the social and cultural dimensions of the Klan movement, Fox offers readers a fascinating, deeply researched, and original work, one of the very best community studies yet produced about the 1920’s Klan. Leonard J. Moore McGill University William Greenleaf. Monopoly on Wheels: Henry Ford and the Selden Automobile Patent. 1961; repr., Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2011. Pp. 302. Bibliography. Index. Notes. Paper, $24.95. In 1879, patent attorney and tinkerer George B. Selden applied for a U.S. patent for an “improved road engine,” a broad claim covering the use of a gasoline internal-combustion engine in a road-going vehicle. Selden then exploited legal loopholes to delay his patent’s issue until 1895, when gasoline-powered cars were starting to catch on. Selden never built a car. The vehicle described in his patent bore little resemblance to those built in 1895. And, most critically, the gasoline cars made in 1895 were developed independently; their creators neither knew of nor benefited from Selden’s plans. Nevertheless, his broadly conceived patent meant that anyone producing a gasolinepowered car owed Selden royalties—beginning in 1895 and for many years thereafter until the patent was struck down in court. The fledgling automobile industry was shaken to its core. Selden teamed with an East Coast conglomerate called the Electric Vehicle Company (derisively known as the “lead cab trust”), which began to target patent-infringing firms. Many companies “in the crosshairs” decided to give in rather than face costly lawsuits, and out of their acquiescence a patent pool was formed in 1903, the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers (ALAM). Like other pools, the ALAM limited entry to licensed firms. It also brought suit against unlicensed companies—those that refused to accept the legitimacy of the Selden patent and pay tribute, or those that sought but were denied entry into ALAM. These “independents” typically shared a more radical vision of the automotive future, one of mass-produced everyman’s cars Book Reviews 135 rather than the high-cost, low-volume machines that dominated ALAM members’ lineups. Among the independents, one in particular stood out: Henry Ford. Sued for patent-infringement in 1903, Ford fought back. A protracted battle ensued, which was not resolved until 1911, when on appeal ALAM’s claims were dismissed and the Selden patent rendered virtually worthless. The East Coast trust was smashed, and firms like Ford were free at last to churn out simple, cheap, and honest cars for the masses. This is a well-known tale. Anyone familiar with the history of the automobile will have heard it time and again. Why is this so? Because of William Greenleaf’s Monopoly on Wheels: Henry Ford and the Selden Automobile Patent, which was first published in 1961. Based on exhaustive research into the Selden case, this masterful book is a modern classic, a page-turner that reads more like a novel than what it is: a discourse on the minutiae of patent and technological history. Long out of print, Greenleaf’s book has become prohibitively expensive. Few have ever seen an original copy, let alone owned one or contemplated assigning it to students. Indeed, our collective familiarity with its story is largely due to subsequent summaries written by others. Fortunately, Wayne State University Press has now stepped in and reissued Greenleaf’s book as an inexpensive paperback (it has done the same for other unobtainable works, including Charles Sorensen’s My Forty Years with Ford). Accessible, intelligent, and rich in detail—if occasionally unabashed in its praise for Mr. Ford—Monopoly on Wheels remains the definitive text on the Selden suit. Only now, you won’t have to eat instant noodles for a year to afford a copy. David N. Lucsko Auburn University Adam Jortner. The Gods of Prophetstown: The Battle of Tippecanoe and the Holy War for the American Frontier. New York: Oxford University Press...

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.212 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMichigan Historical ReviewSame topicAmerican History and CultureFrench-language works237,207