MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7111004253 · doi:10.70629/1853.4503.v.n4.34022

Más allá de la vitrina: La historia de los instrumentos científicos

2013· article· W7111004253 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista electrónica de fuentes y archivos. · 2013
Typearticle
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies in Science
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSketchScope (computer science)Order (exchange)Character (mathematics)Conceptual history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of scientific instruments has always been a branch of the history of science, but in recent years, its character and scope have been changing. Two examples (a 1870s spectroscope and a 1920s geo-physical torsion balance) are discussed in order to sketch possibilities in artefact-centred study and to show how recent methodological debates about instruments and material culture, including their display in contemporary settings, intersect with current themes in history of science.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.019
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista electrónica de fuentes y archivos.Same topicHistorical Studies in ScienceFrench-language works237,207