MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400829785 · doi:10.1353/tech.2024.a933098

Crucibles of Craft: Home Workshops and Leisurely Striving in Twentieth-Century U.S. Woodworking Magazines

2024· article· en· W4400829785 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Culture · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFashion and Cultural Textiles
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHobbyCraftWoodworkingAdvertisingEngineeringVisual artsBusinessArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With more leisure time in the early to mid-twentieth century, more people in industrialized countries took up hobbies. One hobby-woodworking-became a favorite among men, especially homeowners. Beyond the familiar "do-it-yourselfers" there was an audience eager to learn about woodworking, and magazine publishers encouraged them to acquire new skills and home machinery. American publishers led the way, but workshop converts in English-speaking countries like Canada and the United Kingdom got the magazines and the message. The promise of creative leisure at home did not democratize the hobby. Monthly features and awards praising accomplished amateurs did not challenge social and economic norms but defined leisure success in conventional terms. Those with the income and space to maintain a hobby served as models for others whose circumstances were less ideal. Through its flagship publication, a machine manufacturer often acquiesced to the industrial-era pressures that hobbies sought to alleviate.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it