MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1812952082 · doi:10.24124/c677/200857

Transitional Identities: Negotiating Social Transitions in the Pacific NW 1825-1860s

2008· article· en· W1812952082 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lisa Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Political Science Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHegemonyJurisdictionNegotiationSovereigntyImmigrationPopulationPolitical sciencePolitical economySociologyLawDemographyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When one studies a specific society, hegemonic practice is so deeply rooted that it is often difficult to study it from outside that system. However, there are periods of dramatic social change when ongoing social practice in a geographic space is disrupted. On such occasions hegemonic forces can be seen, as it were, from outside of assumed practice. The northwest coast of North America provides such an opportunity. From 1818 to 1846, the British and American states shared jurisdiction over the territory with sovereignty under constant negotiation. The Hudson’s Bay Company established a substantial commercial presence in the region from the 1820s to 1850s. During the 1830s and 1840s, massive immigration from the eastern United States shifted the population balance to favour those with ties to the United States. The imposition of the border across the northwest in 1846 marked a significant watershed in the evolution of social control in the region.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.024
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Political Science ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207