MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413150991 · doi:10.3138/cart-2024-0027

Imported Toponymy and the FamilySearch Place Name Database: Mapping North American Communities with European Capital Namesakes

2025· article· en· W4413150991 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Samuel M. Otterstrom, Daniel Reeves

Bibliographic record

VenueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNames, Identity, and Discrimination Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToponymyGeographyCapital (architecture)GenealogyCartographyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Place names lend themselves very easily to cartographic and geographic research, and they have been studied extensively from these perspectives. Recent technological advances have allowed for a more rapid geographical study of toponyms of many types. An additional, albeit less visible resource with a robust place name system is the FamilySearch genealogical database. FamilySearch is the world leader in open-source genealogical data and hosts a user-contributed family tree that contains more than one billion names. In this article, the authors explore how the FamilySearch genealogical database likewise offers a user-contributed dimension for analysing and mapping place names. They then use the filter functions of the FamilySearch place database tool to map the spatial diffusion of 438 communities across Canada and the United States that share the names of European capitals. The authors find that these North American “imported capitals” provide evidence of local connections to larger-world happenings, thus broadening the implications of Wilbur Zelinsky’s 1967 theory to include the significance of not only Greco-Roman values but Europeanness as well.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and GeovisualizationSame topicNames, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchFrench-language works237,207