MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254007358 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14647620.v1

The Reports by the Juries: A Finding Aid for a Publication From the Great Exhibition of 1851 in the Collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario

2021· preprint· en· W4254007358 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jill Offenbeck

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionCabinet (room)Presentation (obstetrics)Visual artsLibrary scienceCommissionArtArt historyHistoryLawComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Produced by the Royal Commission for the Great Exhibition of 1851, the four-volume Reports by the Juries is illustrated with 154 salted paper prints from negatives by Claude-Marie Ferrier (1811-1889) and Hugh Owen (1808-1897) and document the exhibits and the Crystal Palace building. 137 copies of the Reports were produced and distributed internationally to individuals and countries that participated in the exhibition. This presentation set, which also includes the Official Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue, the Reports to the Crown, and a presentation set of exhibition medals, belonged to Sir William Crossman (1830-1901) of the Royal Engineers. A specially designed wooden cabinet houses the set. This thesis project is divided into two parts: Part I describes the process of researching and creating the finding aid; Part II is the finding aid itself, containing ten sections addressing historical background information, photographers' biographies, photographic processes, a complete illustrated catalogue of the photographs, an analysis of the photographs, provenance, and a preliminary list of other copies of the publication in public institutions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArchaeological Research and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207