Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the very first ICHC in 1990 I was invited to present a paper on Kirkpatrick MacMillan’s invention of the bicycle, supposedly in 1839. I had no reason to doubt the ‘facts’ of the story, my concern was that it should have been seen as a dead end. It was very clear that MacMillan had nothing to do with the invention of the bicycle as it was to develop after 1860 and the claim that he was ‘the inventor of the bicycle’ was fundamentally mistaken. However, as I looked at the available evidence, its paucity was very clear, whatever the story was, what was commonly understood as fact was largely myth. \n \nAlthough many were convinced that the MacMillan story was bogus, no-one then went on to publish anything that developed the ‘case against’ the MacMillan story beyond what had been said in 1990. Indeed, some sixteen years later the opposite happened when Andrew Ritchie’s definitive survey of the evidence relating to Kirkpatrick MacMillan, Gavin Dalzell and Thomas McCall was published. While Ritchie was assiduous in assembling the evidence, the survey was far from objective, effectively creating a case for the defence. Thereafter, Ritchie’s work has been used to propagate the popular acceptance of the story. \n \nAlso in the last fifteen years there has been a significant increase in cycling activity in the UK. The MacMillan story comes up, unquestioned, almost every time a significant event is held in Scotland, indeed even the National Museum still propagates it. The time has surely come for the evidence that Ritchie presented to be reviewed from the position of those who question the veracity of the MacMillan story. \n \nThis paper considers Ritchie’s approach to the topic and the analysis it offers. It distils the approach to what I hope will be a far larger publication that, read beside Ritchie’s work, aims to provide the balance that is required to understand the nature and validity of the evidence that he presented.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.535 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".