MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6898708625 · doi:10.57962/regionalia-157

Das Mannheimer Herschelbad

2020· article· de· W6898708625 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRegionaliaOpen · 2020
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGerman Social Sciences and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Period (music)Context (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bernhard Herschel hatte der Stadt Mannheim 500 000 Goldmark für den Bau einer „Zentral- Bade- und Schwimmanstalt“ hinterlassen. Er starb im Jahr 1905. Otto Beck, damaliger Oberbürgermeister und Freund des Großkaufmanns, hatte den großzügigen Stifter dazu angeregt. Der Wunsch nach einer solchen Badeanstalt fiel in die Zeit einer wahren Bevölkerungsexplosion. Im Jahr 1895 zählte die Stadt Mannheim noch 91 000 Bürger und bereits im Jahr 1910 über 200 000 Einwohner. Mit der Friesenheimer Insel 1895 sowie Käfertal und Waldhof im Jahr 1897 hatte eine Welle der Eingemeindungen begonnen.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3090.178

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegionaliaOpenSame topicGerman Social Sciences and HistoryFrench-language works237,207