Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of international geographical congresses can be divided in three periods, from 1871 to 1914, from 1922 to 1939, and since 1946. The most recent congress, which took place in Stockholm in 1960, was one of the most important ever beld. About 700 papers were presented at Stockholm, either in the Sections or in the Official Commissions. The most numerous papers were those dealing with human geography, economic geography, geomorphology, hydrography, periglacial geo-morphology and the teaching of geography. Of these 700 papers, only 15 were read by Canadian geographers, against 154 by American and 98 by Russian geographers. Still, this was the most important participation by Canadian geographers in any international geographical meeting ; however even if there bas been a marked progress since Canada's first participation at Venice in 1881, this is still not sufficient for a country with an international vocation like Canada. The main steps to take to improve the situation would be more, and especially more geographic, research, the preparation of special issues of Canadian geographical periodicals for every congress and the holding of an international geographical congress in Canada in 1968 or in 1972.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.005 |
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".