Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The natural history review was a quarterly founded in 1854 by Edward Perceval Wright,\nthen an undergraduate student of zoology at Trinity College Dublin. Its first editorial committee (1856?\n1860) held traditional views of natural history. By 1860 The natural history review had failed, ostensibly\nfor lack of subscribers, and Wright put it in the hands of Thomas Henry Huxley who, together with Joseph\nHooker, John Tyndall and others, was then looking for a vehicle to disseminate the agenda of what\nHuxley later called ?scientific naturalism?. Against advice from his friends, Darwin, Lyell and Hooker,\nHuxley accepted the editorship, preserving the title but giving The natural history review a new direction\nby replacing the former editorial team with some of his like-minded colleagues. Extant correspondence\nbetween several of these comprises dozens of letters in which The natural history review (1861?1865)\nwas discussed. By the end of 1862 Huxley had given up on it, but the periodical survived until\nJuly 1865 with Hooker at the head. Throughout this second series, Charles Darwin exercised an\nunofficial, effective, and to today?s eyes, ethically questionable editorial role. The natural history review\nceased publication under Hooker in 1865. Competition from other publications, the lack of a clear\npurpose and the prevalence of ideology over business sense in the editor-in-chief were the likely reasons\nfor its repeated failures.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.034 |
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".