Bibliographic record
Abstract
My first encounter with the mystery of Tecumseh's bones was in the summer of 1972,.I was eleven years old that summer, which was the same summer my father decided our family would be better off in the country.We soon found ourselves living in an old farmhouse out in the middle of nowhere, and surrounded by an agrarian landscape I repeatedly disparaged as being completely "dull and boring."It was quite a predicament, but I managed to cope by seeking out anything that offered the slightest semblance of interest.Much to my surprise, this quiet corner of southwestern Ontario soon began to reveal its fair share of curiosities.There were, among other things, a forest-shrouded "Indian" reserve, a murky meandering river, and -most intriguing of all -a ranch-style house.Clad with imitation peeled logs and stained a reddish hue, this ranch-style house looked for all the world like a ranger's station in a national park ... except that there was no such park for miles around.It was a profound mystery and one that continued to deepen, until a well-intentioned grown-up ruined everything with an unsolicited explanation.The ranch-style house, as it turned out, was not a misplaced ranger's station, but rather a museum -although not a real museum like Madame Tussaud's.Quite the contrary.Our local repository was dedicated to the "dull and boring" history of a long-vanished church mission.With this revelation, I promptly redirected my energies to other curiosities.I had an abrupt change of heart, however, when a visiting cousin recalled the many treasures he had seen displayed just beyond the museum's faux log facade.Of course, all this talk of treasure could mean only one thing.Pirates!There certainly was nothing "dull and boring" about pirates.It was a point I reiterated until my parents finally agreed to a tour of the Fairfield Museum.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.661 | 0.476 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".