MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243559334 · doi:10.1093/maghis/24.2.5

Letters

2010· article· en· W4243559334 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. Geiger, K. W. Graham, P. W. Laird

Bibliographic record

VenueOAH Magazine of History · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian American and Pacific Histories
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivilege (computing)ImmigrationPolitical scienceLawGovernment (linguistics)Transit (satellite)Power (physics)International lawWork (physics)SociologyPublic transportEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: Thank you for an excellent issue featuring recent work on migration history [in the October 2009 issue of the OAH Magazine of History]. I appreciated the reference to my own work on page 35, but thought it important to clarify that it was not the transit privilege that required imposition of a $500 bond on Japanese migrants who entered the United States in transit to Canada. Rather, the $500 bond was imposed by the U. S. government in an effort to burden the transit privilege, which was grounded in principles of international law and invoked by Japanese migrants to cross international borders that would otherwise have remained closed to them. What is so interesting about the transit privilege was its surprising power to force the governments of both Canada and the United States to allow border crossings they would otherwise have chosen to impede. Although both nations eventually found ways around it, neither was able to abrogate it in its entirety, with the result that it remained a point of vulnerability in the systems of exclusionary immigration law both nations sought to erect during the early years of the 20th century.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1710.096

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOAH Magazine of HistorySame topicAsian American and Pacific HistoriesFrench-language works237,207