Continuity and Change in Canadian Politics: Essays in Honour of David E. Smith
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuity and Change in Canadian Politics: Essays in Honour of David E. Smith, Hans J. Michelmann and Cristine de Clercy, eds., Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006, pp. 273. Festschrifts pose tricky problems for editors, publishers and reviewers. Editors have to confront the sensitive issue of whom to ask to contribute, how to nudge tardy contributors along and whether the honoree will be pleased with the result. Such collections are seldom thematically coherent enough to guarantee large sales, which is an issue for publishers facing bottom-line calculations. Reviewers have to critically appraise essays on which they are often not experts and they have to remember the occasion for putting those essays between covers. Despite these problems the genre persists, partly on the basis of tradition but also out of the genuine desire to honour colleagues who have been outstanding scholars and “citizens” in their professional fields.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".