Variations on the Theme of Remembering: A National Survey of How Canadians Use the Past
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper in collective remembering is based on a telephone survey of 3,419 adult residents of Canada. The questionnaire contains over 70 questions. The interviews average over 20 minutes in length. Part of the Canadians and Their Pasts project, the survey seeks to assess how Canadians use the past in daily life. How many engage in activities related to the past, such as reading books, viewing photos, or visiting museums and historic sites? How do they evaluate different sources of information about the past? What types of past — family, province, nation, ethnic group — are most important to them? The paper suggests that the construction and reconstruction of autobiographical memory is a fundamental aspect of one’s uses of the past. It also proposes that wider collective pasts are particularly important among members of minority and alternative groups. And that the past of the nation-state figures more prominently in these citizens’ reflections than Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen observed in their similar study, The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life (1998).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".