MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963844580 · doi:10.3138/tjt.24.suppl_1.115

How <i>Canadian</i> is Our Context?

2008· article· en· W1963844580 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Douglas John Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoticeContext (archaeology)TributeMedia studiesNewspaperHistorySociologyArt historyArtLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I was tempted to entitle this brief tribute to my friend Harold Wells, "When did Mum become Mom?" Like most Anglo-Canadians of my vintage, and like the generations before me, I grew up calling my mother "Mum"—once 1 had advanced beyond the childhood form "Mummie." But about thirty or forty years ago, I began to notice that newspapers and other media, when they resorted to the familiar for mother, increasingly rendered it "Mom." Then I found that my own siblings were writing about our "Mom." The straw that broke the camel's back was when my mother herself began to sign her letters "Mom." Well, it's undoubtedly a small matter. Most people seem not to notice. But Thus—silently, imperceptibly—do cultures change. When more than 88 per cent of the television programs Canadians watch emanate directly from the empire on whose remote northern edge we exist, why should anyone be surprised when "centre" becomes "center," and "pianist" becomes "pianist," and "zed" becomes "zee," etc.? When the films, pop music, TV evangelism, soap operas, sitcoms, stand-up comedy, etc., etc. by which Canadians are "entertained" twenty-four hours a day are nearly all "Made in America;' why should there be any astonishment in the ranks when it is noticed that Canadian youth are not only dressing like Americans but speaking like them too?

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0640.025
Scholarly communication0.0300.009
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.004

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207