MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6903062471 · doi:10.7910/dvn/eox8s

Massachusetts Archives Collection. v.167-Revolution Council Papers, 1777. SC1/series 45X, Petition of Joseph Francis

2017· dataset· en· W6903062471 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard Dataverse · 2017
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLegal Cases and Commentary
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchivistEndowmentColumn (typography)PoliticsNational archivesCenter (category theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Petition subject: Permission to travel Original: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:13909085 Date of creation: 1777-10-13 Petition location: Boston Selected signatures: Joseph Francis [Joseph Francis' wife] London Saunders Actions taken on dates: 1777-10-13 Legislative action: Received in the Council on October 13, 1777 and read and ordered and granted Total signatures: 3 Legislative action summary: Received, read, ordered, granted Females of color signatures: 1 Males of color signatures: 2 Female only signatures: No Identifications of signatories: three negroes, [males of color], [females of color] Prayer format was printed vs. manuscript: Manuscript Signatory column format: not column separated Additional archivist notes: Louisburg, Halifax, Alfred privateer, Captain Jones Location of the petition at the Massachusetts Archives of the Commonwealth: Massachusetts Archives volume 167, page 325 Acknowledgements: Supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities (PW-5105612), Massachusetts Archives of the Commonwealth, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University, Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University, Institutional Development Initiative at Harvard University, and Harvard University Library.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2590.137

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarvard DataverseSame topicLegal Cases and CommentaryFrench-language works237,207