MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Qubit

2010· book-chapter· en· W4252676307 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathon Keats

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHistory and Theory of Mathematics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Natural (archaeology)HebrewAncient historyHistoryArabicClassicsArchaeologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every man in ancient Egypt had his own standard of measurement. The standard unit was a cubit, the span from the bend of his elbow to his middle finger tip. A natural length, as natural as the body itself, it was also a natural source of disagreement between men of different statures. To build the Pyramids, or even conduct daily business without coming to fisticuff s, the cubit had to be universalized. And it was, more than once. The Egyptian royal cubit was one palm longer than the common cubit of 17.72 modern inches, that palm being scaled to match the hand of the reigning pharaoh. In Greece, where the cubit was adopted, it needed to be reconciled with the local fathom, based on the distance between two outstretched arms. Adjusted to measure one quarter of a fathom (the fathom having been standardized to six Greek feet of 12.14 modern inches each), the Greek cubit spanned 18.2 inches—which is to say somewhat less than the Babylonian cubit of 19.6 inches and somewhat more than the Roman cubit of 17.49 inches—none of these measures correlating with the Hebrew, Persian, Arabic, or Mesopotamian cubits. For the ancient trader, the range of cubit lengths must have been a source of aggravation. For the modern historian, though, these differences in definition—discrepancies in measurement preserved in written records and stone rods—are a rich source of information about ancient cultures, their bureaucratic structures, and their interactions with others. Future historians may find equivalent insight into our own time by examining our tortuous path toward standardized measurements of information. Our most basic unit is the bit, an abbreviation of binary digit. The word first appeared in print in 1948, in one of the founding papers of information theory, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” written by Claude Shannon, father of the discipline. Shannon borrowed bit from the statistician John Tukey, a colleague at Bell Laboratories who had a knack for coining catchy words (such as software), and came up with bit as an alternative to less attractive contractions, including binit and bigit.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4970.469

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicHistory and Theory of Mathematics→French-language works237,207→