MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250689566 · doi:10.3138/jsp.39.4.354

The Alchemy of Turning Fiction into Truth

2008· article· en· W4250689566 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Henige

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterfactual thinkingAlchemyAgency (philosophy)EpistemologyHistoryPhilosophyArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our sense of the past is expressed by a wide range, from belief without any knowledge to knowledge based on incontrovertible and converging evidence. There is also an additional category: presentations of the past that are admittedly counterfactual – that is, that are known never to have happened. How libraries classify these materials has an impact on whether they are believed or rejected. Unfortunately, the Library of Congress, the agency chiefly responsible for classifying books, has made no serious effort to distinguish between probable fact and palpable fiction, leaving users unsure as to what to believe.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.101
Scholarly communication0.0170.021
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0050.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicArchaeological Research and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207