Entender la naturaleza para crear una industria. El petróleo en la exploración de John Mcleod Murphy en el istmo de Tehuantepec, 1865
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1851, John McLeod Murphy was the junior officer of the U.S. Navy in charge of drafting the hydrographic report during the scientific expedition of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, directed by Major Barnard. During his survey Murphy observed the oil springs and lakes scattered around the Atlantic Plains of the Isthmus. Years later in New York, Murphy was observing with interest the massive wealth generated by petroleum; he decided to move again to the Isthmus to explore more thoroughly the area. In 1865 Murphy prepared an important feasibility study on the possibility to build oil settlements in South Veracruz. Geographic survey, topographic measurements, geological interpretation, and logistic, are some of the elements proposed by Murphy to describe the making of oil in the uncontaminated and wild Mexican natural landscapes. En 1851, John McLeod Murphy fue el oficial inferior de la Armada estadounidense encargado de redactar el informe hidrográfico en la expedición científica en el istmo de Tehuantepec, dirigida por el Mayor Barnard. Durante su exploración, encontró varios criaderos y pozas de petróleo. Años más tarde, en Nueva York, Murphy fue espectador interesado de la explosión de riqueza generada por la extracción del petróleo; el decidió volver a Tehuantepec para explorar más detenidamente las zonas. Los resultados de su visita se plasmaron, en 1865, en un importante estudio de factibilidad acerca de la posibilidad de emprender la explotación petrolífera en la región. Su estudio constituye la primera combinación de exploración geográfica, medición topográfica, interpretación geológica y logística comercial del petróleo mexicano; y representa una fuente hasta aquí no conocida y analizada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".