Bibliographic record
Abstract
Martinez, Feb. 15, 1898 My dear Johnson, I have just finished an article on the Yellowstone for the Atlantic, & have two more park articles to write. Of course you know very well that the Century Co. could have had these forest things if they liked. I think by the tone of your last letter that you have misunderstood me in part. The editor of the Atlantic did not "step in" & offer to pay me a larger price for articles than the Century. On the contrary when Mr. Page at Sargents request wrote me offering to publish as much forestry as I would write he stated that because the Atlantic was so much smaller a concern than the Century he was afraid my compensation would have to be less. I never told him what the Century paid nor did he make any offer. When the first article was published he asked me to name the price. I told him to send what he usually paid for similar articles. He sent more than Century price but no sum was mentioned beforehand. Later he began asking for books not already [bargained?] for, praised Houghton Mifflin of course as he should,
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.869 | 0.783 |
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".