Chapter 3 Robert Harkness, Henry Alleyne Nicholson and Charles Lapworth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For some forty years after Adam Sedgwick took to the field in the Lakes in 1822, he was virtually the only major geologist to make the region one of his main objects of study. We have seen how he made considerable efforts to sort out the stratigraphy of the southern Lakes, relating his work there to his investigations in Wales, but to a large extent he left the central volcanic region alone; likewise the Skiddaw Slates - apart from claiming them for his Cambrian System on the basis of their apparently meagre fossil contents, as collected by Ruthven. The man who took up from where Sedgwick left off was Robert Harkness (1816-1878) (see Fig. 3.1). l His family came from Ormskirk, near Liverpool, but he attended school in Dumfries in SW Scotland, his father's home town. From there he went to Edinburgh University, where he studied under the geologists Robert Jameson and James David Forbes, and the chemist Thomas Charles Hope. In his early twenties Harkness was making geological investigations in Lancashire, particularly among the coalfields and the rocks of the New Red Sandstone. In 1848, the family moved to Dumfries, from which centre Harkness, being of independent means, began geological investigations among the rocks of the Southern Uplands, including the region near Moffat, which, rich in graptolites, later became a classic site through the work of Charles Lapworth (1842-1920) (Hamilton 2001). Thus early in his career, Harkness became familiar with these Lower Palaeozoic fossils. In fact, his interest in them
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.098 | 0.030 |
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".