MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7019426237

Fiction And Fission: Twentieth — Century Writing on The Founding Fathers Fiction And Fission: Twentieth — Century Writing on The Founding Fathers

2009· article· en· W7019426237 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClanMythologyQuarter (Canadian coin)ConchTRACE (psycholinguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Australia, tribesmen trace their origins to a rain-making python who drowned a set of incestuous sisters because they polluted his watering place with their menstrual blood) In Tibet, families derive their descent from a beautiful boy in a conch .egg which came from the immense ovum exuded from the essence of the five primordial elements. 2 In Polynesia, islanders tell tales of the emergence of their clan forebears from holes in the ground.' And in every other quarter of the globe, other people proclaim other origin myths which are beyond reasoning but not without reasons. In Australia, tribesmen trace their origins to a rain-making python who drowned a set of incestuous sisters because they polluted his watering place with their menstrual blood) In Tibet, families derive their descent from a beautiful boy in a conch .egg which came from the immense ovum exuded from the essence of the five primordial elements. 2 In Polynesia, islanders tell tales of the emergence of their clan forebears from holes in the ground.' And in every other quarter of the globe, other people proclaim other origin myths which are beyond reasoning but not without reasons.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.020
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.212
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicAustralian History and Society→French-language works237,207→