MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402114325 · doi:10.62192/japas.v10i1n18

Review of: <em>A Geography of the Hutterites of North America</em>—Simon M. Evans

2022· article· en· W4402114325 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Royden Loewen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyEconomic geographyRegional scienceDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns0:p>Imagine a complex academic book without a subtitle: straightforward, lucid, accessible. These qualities describe Simon Evans’ final word on Hutterites of the western plains of Canada and the United States. It’s an historical geography, distinctive from the more numerous social scientific studies of the Hutterites. It methodically traces the dispersion of an 1870s Dakota settlement into Manitoba and Alberta during World War I, and then into Montana and Saskatchewan after World War II, with small representations in Washington State and British Columbia. Along the way, Evans deepens his analysis and interlaces theological consideration, demographic change, ecological intrusion, marketplace engagement, political interaction, gender relations, and internecine differences with the geographer’s craft, spatial arrangement. Indeed, these various intersections make for a richly textured historical geography that no subtitle could capture. And they rely on Evans’ own expansive on-colony ethnography, rich map collections, and broad engagement with a multi-disciplinary secondary literature. In the process Evans gives us a fresh look at the Hutterites and produces a historical geography that does much more than document the Hutterite diaspora in the North American grassland. [First paragraph.]</ns0: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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist StudiesSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207