MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058804888 · doi:10.1353/can.2013.0001

Liberty in Time and Space: A Commentary on Ducharme

2013· article· fr· W2058804888 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Colin M. Coates

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueen (butterfly)PublishingHistoryField (mathematics)Art historyPolitical scienceLibrary scienceMedia studiesSociologyLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CHR is publishing the papers presented at the Sir John A. Macdonald Prize roundtable which took place during the 2012 Canadian Historical Association’s annual congress. This is the most prestigious prize awarded each year by the Association for the best scholarly book in Canadian history. The roundtable provides the opportunity for historians in the field to discuss the winning study’s contribution from multiple perspectives. The 2011 winner was Michel Ducharme’s Le concept de liberté au Canada à l’époque des Révolutions atlantiques (1776–1838) , published by McGill-Queen’s University Press (2010). La CHR publie les communications présentées à la table ronde Sir John A. Macdonald qui est au programme du congrès annuel de la Société historique du Canada. Il s’agit du prix le plus prestigieux décerné par l’Association chaque année pour honorer la meilleure publication en histoire canadienne. La table ronde donne la chance à des historiens/nes dans le domaine d’analyser la contribution de l’ouvrage gagnant à partir de points de vue multiples. En 2011, le lauréat du prix fut Michel Ducharme pour son étude intitulée Le concept de liberté au Canada à l’époque des Révolutions atlantiques (1776–1838) , publiée par McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.006

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207