Bibliographic record
Abstract
In her 1998 Presidential Address to the Canadian Historical Association, Judith Fingard poses a question which has been on our collective minds for some time: “Does the personal history of the historian determine the choice of her or his subject matter, approach, and ongoing professional development?” By delving into the personal reflections of celebrated Canadian historians, Fingard has been able to shed light on this contentious issue. According to Fingard, the personal and professional intersect at several key points (or at least have for her sample of historians working in Canada in the past twenty years). The obvious, it seems, is true. Gender, class and stage of life all influence scholarly pursuits whether it be in terms of subject matter chosen or the amount of time one is able to devote to research and writing. Certainly the past twenty years has seen great change in Canadian academia; particularly, one can argue, in the field of history. It is clear that those sampled in Fingard's survey drew upon their personal backgrounds not only to forge a passion for the past - sometimes against all odds - but a professional identity based on the study of history of the margins. Ultimately, we can conclude that social historians of the past twenty years personify the field they played such a role in developing. To varying degrees, the profession is indeed personal.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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".