Misconceptions, Myths, and Maps: a fresh look at Armidale's 'Galloway Grid'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is more than 30 years since D.N. Jeans discussed the processes under which rural towns were laid out in colonial New South Wales, particularly during the period from the late 1820s until 1842. This was the responsibility of the Surveyor- General's Department, which employed teams of field surveyors as well as draughtsmen, clerks, and sundry support staff. Heading the department was the Surveyor-General himself and his deputy. During most of the period examined by Jeans, the Surveyor-General was Sir Thomas Livingstone Mitchell and his deputy was Samuel Augustus Perry. Jeans made a beginning in examining the interactions between the Surveyor-General and his deputy and between these two and the staff both in Sydney and in the field. Using the case study of Armidale in the New England region of New South Wales, this paper will argue that much more work is needed to establish just how the department worked. In particular, Mitchell's frequent absences on expeditions and in Britain placed Perry in sole charge for many years. The relationships between Mitchell and Perry and their differing priorities and values need detailed study to establish just how the department worked during the second quarter of the 19th century. Such a study is beyond the scope of this paper. According to Jeans, local landowners generally provided the initial impetus for laying out a town, although official reasons sometimes replaced private requests. He noted that 'police magistrates had a hand in choosing sites conveniently placed to become their headquarters.'
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".