Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Vancouver Institute began as a partnership between the Vancouver community, especially its learned societies, and the University of British Columbia. The social roots and administrative arrangements of the Institute help to explain its evolution between 1916 and 1934. At an early stage, professors and local residents joined in administering the Institute; but by 1934, UBC professors dominated it, thus ensuring maintenance of the university's influence. Résumé L'Institut de Vancouver d'ébutait comme partenariat entre la communauté vancouvéroise (ses sociétés savants surtout)—et l'Université de Colombie Britanique. Les racines sociales et l'evolution administrative de l'Institute contribuent à expliquer son d'éveloppement entre 1916 et 1934. Elles nous amènent à comprendre pourquoi l'administration coopérative par les professeurs et les citoyens a disparu pour être remplacée avant 1934 par un système de domination professional dans les affaires de l'Institut.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".