MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028502272 · doi:10.1080/02722010903319053

Introduction: Canada–US Relations under Obama: Continuity or Change? ACSUS Enders Symposium, Carleton University, 24 October 2008

2009· article· en· W2028502272 on OpenAlexaffabout
Melissa Haussman, Laura Macdonald

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPolitical scienceMedia studiesLibrary sciencePublic administrationSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Association for Canadian Studies in the United States (ACSUS) organizes the biennial ACSUS Enders Symposium as a way of promoting understanding of the evolution of Canada–US relations. The symposium also honors the work of Thomas O. Enders, who served as US ambassador to Canada from 1976 to 1979, and his work in promoting the relationship between the two countries. In other years, the symposium was held in Washington DC at the Woodrow Wilson Center, but the ACSUS board decided to move the event to Canada in 2008 in order to expand its audience and bring in new actors. Carleton University (with its Centre on North American Politics and Society and its School of Canadian Studies) and the Canada–Fulbright Foundation were brought in as partners, and the sixth biennial symposium was held 24 October 2008 at Carleton University in Ottawa. Several papers of the symposium appear here in a special issue of the American Review of Canadian Studies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.003

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207