Petition of Thomas Sawin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Petition subject: Property Original: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:26855789 Date of creation: 1695-02-27 Petition location: Sherborn Selected signatures: Thomas Sawin Actions taken on dates: 1695-03-14,1695-06-15,1695-06-22 Legislative action: Read and voted for hearing in the House on March 14, 1695 and sent for concurrence read and voted for hearing at the next session in the House on June 15, 1695 and sent for concurrence and concurred in the Council on June 22, 1695 Total signatures: 1 Legislative action summary: Read, hearing, sent, read, hearing, sent, concurred Legal voter signatures (males not identified as non-legal): 1 Female only signatures: No 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: attorney, Natick Indians, request that 1700 acres of land be returned to the Indians by Samuel Gookin and Samuel Howe, survey, Cambridge, Sudbury, lands, sale, Matthew Rice, Penn Townsend, Nehemiah Jewett, William Bond, Isaac Addington, David Fisk Location of the petition at the Massachusetts Archives of the Commonwealth: Massachusetts Archives volume 30, pages 361-361a
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.193 | 0.080 |
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".