Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tradition versus modernity—and the spaces in between—is a major theme not only in the study, but also in the popular image of Canadian rural history. Our rural ancestors are often portrayed as self-sufficient, independent units. Closed off from market economies and providing everything they need on their own, they are models of an ideal, traditional and long-forgotten way of life. On the other hand, it is also possible that these people were market-oriented to the extent of solely producing staple crops for sale on lucrative foreign markets. I have had the opportunity to examine a rich historical source from the mid-nineteenth-century. The account book from the farm of James Wilson of North Dumfries, Ontario from 1866 to 1869 is one of many sources in the University of Guelph’s rural history archive that offers researchers a provocative glimpse of life in Canada in the past. The majority of this paper is devoted to the analysis of James Wilson’s account book itself and the world it reveals. It s in these spaces—in the worlds of which the Wilson farm is one example—that tradition and modernity become secondary to the mediating and motivating force of the needs of the individual, the family or the group. In the mid-nineteenth century the family was the main unit of economic, social and political agency for many people. James Wilson and his family were involved in local affairs at every level: economic, social, cultural, religious, political, etc. The world in which this family lived contained both traditional and modern elements. It was not the case that they blindly followed the traditions of the past, nor was it the case that they put all their faith in free-market economics or the values of modernity. The Wilson family lived between two extremes, with the needs and desires of the family being always paramount.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".