Bibliographic record
Abstract
The suprise of being invited to comment on the state of Canadian labour history was exceeded by the honour. The explosive early growth of the field in the 1970s, and its domination by the team that created Labour/Le Travail, has concealed stasis and even a decline in the past decade, a harsh economic climate sent the paths of the labour movement and of younger historians in unexpected directions. Historians who believed they got closer to the present by understanding the past might reflect on misjudgments as well as successes. Resume La suprise d'etre invite a donner des commentaires sur l'histoire de la classe ouvriere canadienne ete depassee par l'honneur. Le domaine etait en pleine croissance au debut des annees 1970, et sa domination par l'equipe qui a cree Labour/Le Travail, a cache la stase et meme un declin au cours de la derniere decennie, en meme temps qu'un climat economique feroce envoyait les chemins du mouvement syndical et des jeunes historiens dans des directions imprevues. Les historiens qui croyaient se rapprocher du present en comprenant le passe pourraient reflechir sur les jugements mal fondes ainsi que sur les oeuvres reussies.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".