Massachusetts Archives Collection. v.33-Indian, 1757-1775. SC1/series 45X, Petition of William Peckham
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Petition subject: Support for individuals Original: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:13909009 Date of creation: 1759-06-05 Petition location: Dartmouth Legislator, committee, or address that the petition was sent to: Several names from a committee Selected signatures: William Peckham Actions taken on dates: 1759-06-09,1759-06-09,1759-06-11 Legislative action: Received in the House on June 9, 1759 and read and ordered and sent for concurrence and received in the Council on June 9, 1759 and read and concurred and advised on June 11, 1759 Total signatures: 1 Legislative action summary: Received, read, ordered, sent, received, read, concurred, advised Legal voter signatures (males not identified as non-legal): 1 Female only signatures: No Prayer format was printed vs. manuscript: Manuscript Additional archivist notes: Abner Elisha, Lieutenant Annaniah Cornish, expedition, Canada, Albany, small pox, King's Evil, muster roll Location of the petition at the Massachusetts Archives of the Commonwealth: Massachusetts Archives volume 33, pages 109-110 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.280 | 0.124 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".