MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408411124 · doi:10.1007/s10761-025-00788-4

Wool, Wires and Water: Technological Transitions at Strangways Springs

2025· article· en· W4408411124 on OpenAlexaff
Genevieve Bell, Andrew Meares, Alistair Paterson, Isabel Richards, Brendan Traw

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Historical Archaeology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, History, and Historiography
Canadian institutionsCybernet Systems Corporation (Canada)
FundersAustralian National University
KeywordsWoolSpring (device)HistoryArchaeologyEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Strangways Springs artesian mound spring complex in South Australia reveals a layered history in which resources, technology, labor, and culture are significant and changing variables. The site exists in Arabana country, and for thousands of years provided a location for human shelter, artesian waters, and life sustaining resources. The arrival of sheep stations in the “Far North” of South Australia represented a significant rupture and the creation of a new kind of economy based on wool. The establishment of an overland telegraph repeater station brought the latest technological developments to this remote frontier, which had the information of the world available instantly. Other developments such as the railway and wool scouring further secured the importance of locations like Strangways Springs in the continent's colonial infrastructure. This microhistory uses archaeology, archival research, and photography to explore these technological transitions and their impacts at Strangways Springs in the nineteenth century, providing important insights into the sociotechnical nexus that characterized emerging colonial worlds and new forms of modernity in settler Australia.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.218
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Historical ArchaeologySame topicPhilosophy, History, and HistoriographyFrench-language works237,207