Bibliographic record
Abstract
EDITOR'S NOTE In May 2007, the Center for Great Plains Studies held their 33rd Interdisciplinary Symposium. The topic was Homesteading Reconsidered. Chaired by Homestead National Monument Historian Todd Arrington, and organized by the staff of the Center, the conference examined homesteading and its legacy from many angles: reviewing recent and forthcoming scholarship, probing conflicting interpretations, and covering differing perspectives on the historical and ecological significance of homesteading. Competitive papers and invited presentations examined such diverse topics as: Native American views of homesteading; federal land policies in the U.S. and Canada; ecological impact on the natural environment of the Great Plains; the importance of technology to homesteading and westward expansion; the roles of homesteading and agriculture in the eventual onset of the Dust B0wl and droughts of the 1930s; the legacy of the Homestead Act/Dominion Lands Act; the importance of homesteading on modern farming and ranching operations on the Plains; and the future of homesteading and modern homesteading programs. Many excellent essays were submitted to Great Plains Quarterly for peer-review. In forthcoming issues of the journal we will publish a variety of these papers which extend our understanding and appreciation of the significant impact homesteading had, and continues to have, on the land and people of the Plains. This issue includes three such essays.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.045 |
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".