MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015377387 · doi:10.1177/1464700103004001001

Neither Forgotten nor Fully Remembered

2003· article· en· W2015377387 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sharon Rosenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueFeminist Theory · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbivalenceSociologyResource (disambiguation)Gender studiesAestheticsPsychoanalysisArtPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article works from 10th anniversary reporting on the Montréal massacre and its legacy, arguing that the public memory of the massacre, far from being settled, is charged with ambivalence. It is argued that such ambivalence is an effect of the limits of remembrance as a `strategic practice', which has circumscribed sustained encounters with the loss(es) of the massacre. Ambivalence is read in the article as both a limit and resource for feminists interested in re-opening the question of the massacre's public memory for the next decade of memorial-activism.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.004

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFeminist TheorySame topicMemory, Trauma, and CommemorationFrench-language works237,207