Bibliographic record
Abstract
As leader of the "Swallow Patrol" of the 8th (Battersea) Girl Guide Company in south London during the 1920s, Eileen Knapman kept a diary describing her group's activities. 1 In October 1928, she wrote: Miss Chalk, who is now our District Commissioner, came to one of our meetings.We had games, tests, Patrol work, and ... INSPECTION!!!We survived, however, and Miss Chalk thought we were smart!The only things which did not come up to scratch, were our ties, which each member of the Company seems to wear at a different length!We have now abandoned knots for signalling, and we do our best to poke one another's eyes out, in the process of "flagwagging."Half of us can't signal properly, and the other half don't know the alphabet, so we shall have to buck up! Catherine Skelton "flew up" from Brownies into our Patrol.2 Across the Atlantic, Winnifred Thompson, head of the "Nightingale Patrol" of the 21st Guide Company in the Canadian city of Winnipeg, similarly recorded her Guide company's pursuits -though with far fewer exclamation marks -in a handwritten logbook.At a meeting on 22 October 1928, for instance, she noted that some members of her company practised their "ambulance " skills for an upcoming public display, "while the other Guides present played volleyball."Thompson recorded that girls from the 21st Guides had recently qualified for badges in Morse flag signalling, bed making, fire making, and "health rules"; she also wrote that the group, which met weekly at St.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.638 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".