Some Thoughts on the 25th AnniversaryOf The Great Plains Quarterly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Winter of 1981, Frederick C. Luebke sent out a letter to accompany the first issue of the Great Plains Quarterly. In the letter, he stated that the purpose of the new journal was to publish new discoveries and understandings about the Great Plains, and to do so in a language that would appeal to the general reader. For these reasons, Luebke felt that "persons with a lively interest in the Great Plains region will find much to attract them to the Quarterly." Twenty-four volumes later, and after publishing three-hundred and sixty-one original essays, it is safe to say that the creation of the Great Plains Quarterly was a good move for the Center for Great Plains Studies, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and the entire region. To commemorate the 25 th anniversary of the Great Plains Quarterly, I asked all of the former directors of the Center for Great Plains Studies, and all of the former editors of the Quarterly, to reflect upon their experiences and help me address the question of why there is a need for a publication like the Quarterly. In doing so, each of these persons, who all left an important imprint upon the Quarterly, have helped me better understand the contributions of an interdisciplinary regional publication. Frederick C. Luebke is the Charles J. Mach Distinguished Professor of History, Emeritus, at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and served as Director of the Center for Great Plains Studies from 1983 until 1988. He was the founding editor of the Great Plains Quarterly, and served in that position until 1984. Although Fred's vision for the Quarterly is very clearly articulated in the editor's introduction to the first issue of the journal, his responses to my questions add some important background to the decision to create this publication. Fred notes that one impetus was "to transcend the boundaries of University of Nebraska-Lincoln. That is to say, we wished to enhance the reputation of the University of Nebraska as a center of regional interdisciplinary research." The Center for Great Plains Studies first publications took the form of edited books that emerged from the early symposiums, i.e., The Great Plains: Environment and Culture (1978), and Ethnicity on the Great Plains (1980). However, although the symposium and subsequent publications included prominent and distinguished participants, and all work was subjected to rigorous external and anonymous reviews, it was felt that relying on book publications had too many limitations given the mission of the Center. Therefore, the group of professors involved in the planning of the Center proposed to inaugurate the publication of a scholarly journal on a quarterly basis devoted to interdisciplinary research related to the Great Plains. This was easy to propose, but, as Fred describes, "the process required a lead-time of about two years to solicit manuscripts, establish review procedures, create a design, acquire subscriptions, contract printing arrangements, attract advertisers, engage editorial assistants and copy editors, develop book review procedures and the submission of reviews of worthy books, and appoint a panel of advisory editors." One of the reasons this process was so involved, and one of the reasol'lS it still takes considerable time to publish the Quarterly today, is the high standards set by Fred and the Center for the quality of work. Fred notes that, "as founding editor, I insisted on recruiting the best possible work being done in the field of Great Plains studies. If this publication was to find its place as a major publication in regional studies, it had to attract the contributions and participation of distinguished scholars. Hence I recruited nationally and internationally to get a well-known board of advisory editors from whom, I hoped, I could also solicit article manuscripts and book reviews. I always aimed high; I was rarely turned down by anyone."
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.010 |
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".