Petition of Joseph Wiser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Petition subject: Property Original: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:26855890 Date of creation: 1742-03-16 Petition location: Natick Selected signatures: Joseph Wiser Actions taken on dates: 1742-04-06,1742-04-07 Legislative action: Received and read and granted in the House on April 6, 1742 and sent for concurrence and received and read and concurred in the Council on April 7, 1742 Total signatures: 1 Legislative action summary: Received, read, granted, sent, received, read, concurred Males of color signatures: 1 Female only signatures: No Identifications of signatories: Indian planter, [males of color] Prayer format was printed vs. manuscript: Manuscript Native American tribe: Nipmuc Acknowledgements: Supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities (PW-5105612), Massachusetts Archives of the Commonwealth, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University, Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University, Institutional Development Initiative at Harvard University, and Harvard University Library. Additional archivist notes: to sell lands, sale, Joseph Waite of Sudbury, repayment for costs of his father's funeral, proprietors, debts, illness, funeral, burial, James Wiser, Josiah Willard, William Shirley, John Jones, John Hobson, Francis Foxcroft Location of the petition at the Massachusetts Archives of the Commonwealth: Massachusetts Archives volume 31, pages 378-379
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.148 | 0.075 |
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".