Petition of John Eliot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Petition subject: Property </p> <p>Original: <a href="http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:26855731">http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:26855731</a> </p> <p>Date of creation: 1651-10-23 </p> <p>Petition location: Natick </p> <p>Legislator, committee, or address that the petition was sent to: Committee </p> <p>Selected signatures:<ol><li>John Eliot</li></ol> </p> <p>Legislative action: Committed </p> <p>Total signatures: 1 </p> <p>Legislative action summary: Committed </p> <p>Legal voter signatures (males not identified as non-legal): 1 </p> <p>Female only signatures: No </p> <p>Prayer format was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing">printed</a> vs. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuscript">manuscript</a>: Manuscript </p> <p>Native American tribe: Nipmuc </p> <p>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.</p> <p>Additional archivist notes: request for more lands for the Indian plantation at Natick, Dedham, Roxbury, Dorchester, Watertown, Cambridge, Sudbury, religious, William Torrey, Edward Rawson, [additional documents in volumes, see page 20a] </p> <p>Location of the petition at the Massachusetts Archives of the Commonwealth: Massachusetts Archives volume 30, page 21 </p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.284 | 0.050 |
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; both teacher heads 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".