Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’histoire, source de legitimite politique Ma lecture de cette serie est evidemment personnelle, comme elle la ete pour des millions de telespectateurs. Elle est par contre en prise sur letat actuel des connaissances sur lhistoriographie. Je lai voulue un peu provocante afin de souligner mon desaccord avec un usage de lhistoire qui nest pas tant abusif que contre-productif. Etant donne la reputation, les moyens et les expertises mobilisees par la CBC/SRC, je mattendais a un contenu fouille, equilibre, axe sur les perspectives sociales, peut-etre meme un peu subversif, ou lhistoire inviterait a depasser les nostalgies et les ressentiments pour ouvrir des horizons nouveaux. Mes attentes etaient temperees par des preventions. Il sagirait dune celebration du Canada a lentree du millenaire, produite sous le regard des gardiens de lorthodoxie identitaire et dans un medium qui impose des raccourcis abrupts. Emanant dune societe dEtat dont lexistence depend du maintien et de la croissance des credits votes par le Parlement federal, elle
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".