MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322152943 · doi:10.1353/nyh.2022.0044

Artifact NY: Marion Weeber's Flatware of the Future

2022· article· en· W4322152943 on OpenAlex
Jennifer Lemak

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew York History · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCrafts, Textile, and Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetallurgyElectroplatingPlating (geology)EngineeringArt historyArtMaterials scienceComposite materialGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artifact NYMarion Weeber's Flatware of the Future Jennifer Lemak (bio) For centuries, cutlery was made from mixtures of silver, gold, pewter, or other hard metals. Silver, often purchased by wealthier families was the most common material for flatware. As a result, "silverware" was the general term used for flatware whether it was made from silver or not. Prior to the mid-nineteenth century, spoons were the only utensil used at the dining table. Knives were treated as tools and were not to be used at the table. Forks were considered "coarse and ungraceful."1 Matching flatware place settings became common in the mid-nineteenth century, around the same time the new technology of electroplating was developed. Electroplating, or silver-plating, is a process in which a thin coating of silver is chemically adhered to a cheaper metal item. The resulting "silverware" was almost indistinguishable from flatware made from silver. Silver and silver-plated utensils remained the household norm well into the mid-twentieth century. However, new technologies were being developed. Stainless steel was first produced in Sheffield, England, in 1913 by Harry Brearley, a chemist and metallurgist working to improve armor plates.2 By the 1920s, stainless steel was used for medical equipment and small tools, which soon transitioned into military uses and engines during World War II; but it was not until the 1960s and 1970s that the material made its way into household items such as flatware. Industrial designer Marion Weeber took advantage of this new medium for flatware. Weeber's Classic Column tableware was promoted as the future in 1967 when it was selected for the U.S. Commission for Design Excellence at the International and Universal Exposition in Montreal, Canada. Used in the American Pavilion at the Exposition, this tableware was made of highly polished stainless steel and featured futuristic geometric shapes that were rooted in classical forms. The design promoted specific American ideas [End Page 377] Click for larger view View full resolution Figure 1. Classic Column flatware designed by Marion Weeber, 1967. courtesy of the new york state museum, albany, h-1986.59.39. to the world: precision, polish, and forward thought, with an elegant nod to its classical past. Weeber designed several flatware sets and tableware lines in stainless steel for EKCO Products International Company. Working with stainless steel allowed her unlimited design possibilities resulting in a durable and affordable end-product.3 Like her flatware designs, Marion Weeber was ahead of her time. Born in Albany, New York in 1905, she was the daughter of Christian Weeber, an automotive pioneer and aeronautical inventor. She attended the Art Students League of New York City and became a lifetime member. At the age of twenty-three, her father encouraged her to postpone her art studies and work with him in his Albany shop as an apprentice on a helicopter rescue craft. During this time with her father and until his death in 1932, Weeber learned how to create industrial designs by producing mechanical drawings and drafts and work with patent lawyers—skills she would employ for the rest of her career.4 By the mid-1930s, Weeber returned to New York City to work for design and advertising firms, and by 1938, she started her own industrial design company, Marion Weeber, Inc., which lasted until the early 1990s. [End Page 378] Click for larger view View full resolution Figure 2. Marion Weeber models her tulip buttons and clip designs, ca. 1945. Polished silver plate with copper tulips. Designed for La Mode. courtesy of the new york state museum, albany, h-1986.59.40. As an independent industrial designer and business owner, Weeber designed and produced thousands of items—jewelry, buttons, scarves, housewares, kitchen items, lamps, and picture frames—that were sold in finer department stores.5 Additionally, she patented dozens of her designs over her long career. In the last decade of her life and still thinking about the future, Weeber donated several of her designs and finished pieces to museums all over New York State—to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Cooper Hewitt Design Museum, the New York State Museum, and the Albany Institute of History & Art. Each [End Page...

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.145 · 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