Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Preparing historical documents for publication is no easy matter, even if the material involved has been printed in a contemporary newspaper, as was the case for these letters.The transcriptions were made from microfilm versions prepared forty years ago by the Canadian Library Association.These microfilms are not perfect sources.Occasionally the microfilm would miss part of the page, or reproduce either a fold or a hole in the original.Moreover, because of their age, the microfilms have faded and have in some places become virtually illegible.Since the newspapers involved are almost 150 years old and printed on less than high quality paper, it has proved impossible to consult original versions to check the transcriptions.Thus in a few cases there are illegibilities, noted with square brackets in the text.The material provided several other problems as well.One difficulty occurred in the Begg series, where the numbers employed by the newspaper to refer to the letters as originally printed did not always agree with the actual number of the letter in the sequence as reprinted.This was particularly noticeable toward the end of the series, where there appears to be a letter missing, both from the numbered sequence and in terms of the sense of the narrative.As for the Hargrave series, there was a problem with the pen names attached to the letters.A number of Red River correspondents, including JJ. Hargrave, signed themselves "Red River" and had their letters printed in the eastern newspapers.To make matters worse, the Montreal Herald occasionally lumped together several different letters signed "Red River," although not all of the text had come from Hargrave.This edition has tried to sort out the Hargrave letters from the other "Red River" correspondence that appears not to be by Hargrave.If accurate transcriptions, numbering the letters, and the nomenclature of authors of newspaper correspondence in 1869-70 proved a problem, so too in a different sense did the way of presenting annotations.Both Begg and Hargrave refer to people and events that seemed to require additional clarification or elaboration.That additional information
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».