Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comment résumer un discours bilingue sur le commérage? What a task! The author dares to suggest that what really goes on at the annual meetings of the CHA is gossip. Que les historiens préfèrent V appeler "le parler boutique" indique leur malaise devant le commérage. And yet gossip, rich in information, evaluation and entertainment is much more descriptive of what historians actually do at the CHA. In order to explain the uneasiness surrounding the word gossip the author traces the origin and changing meanings of the word gossip /commérage. In both French and English the word follows an identical etymological course through history and somewhere around the sixteenth century, the word acquires the modern sense of a chattery woman. The author links this new meaning of the word to a series of other changes, associated with the Scientific Revolution of the same period, the results of which were the subordination of women. Gossip became a language of powerlessness. But it is also a language special to women, revealing a rich oral culture. Without quite knowing it, historians use aspects of that culture in their own work for they are constantly analyzing the changing norms of any given society. The author illustrates the importance of gossip for premodern societies but argues that as many illustrations can be found for the twentieth century, even in Canada. She concludes by suggesting that gossip may be the historian's clue to deciphering what was really going on in Canadian history which, for ease of reference, she divides into three chatty parts. Une histoire du commérage pourrait tout révéler. . ..
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".