MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316089768 · doi:10.7202/1094120ar

Provenance Research

2022· article· fr· W4316089768 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emma Hagström Molin

Bibliographic record

VenueMémoires du livre · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Geopolitical and Social Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMateriality (auditing)ProvenanceHistoriographyTRACE (psycholinguistics)HistoryClassicsArtArchaeologyAestheticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers the rise of provenance in nineteenth-century Europe through a case study of manuscript research. In the early 1850s, Benedictine scholar Beda Dudík was sent to Stockholm and Rome by the Committee of the Moravian Estates in Habsburg Austria to trace manuscript objects abducted from Moravia (Mähren) by Swedish commanders during the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648). This article considers Dudík’s work with the manuscripts by combining perspectives from book history with those of the history of historiography and the history of ideas and science: I examine the ways in which Dudík worked with classification, and how this work was influenced by source fetishization. Dudík’s work with the manuscripts, recorded in his publications and notes, reveals that provenance is a transformable epistemic category. Moravian interest in provenance reflects their sense of scholarly inferiority, and the changing view of heritage as a public matter, collectively fetishized. In conclusion, the Moravian case illustrates just how significant historical materiality was to people of marginal lands, as inquiries into provenance can be a means of asserting historical existence.

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)0.110
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.279
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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1100.279
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.016
Science and technology studies0.0120.016
Scholarly communication0.0310.021
Open science0.0040.013
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0730.023

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMémoires du livreSame topicHistorical Geopolitical and Social DynamicsFrench-language works237,207