"I want to know my bloodline": New Brunswickers and Their Pasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Brunswick is a product of wars fought from 1689 to 1815. During these wars, all of which included battles on North American soil, the social relations among the First Nations, French, and British inhabitants were forged, often in blood. These conflicts became the foundation for mutable but seemingly mutually exclusive identities that are documented in a recent survey of New Brunswickers on how they engage the past in their everyday lives. In this paper, we describe the eighteenth-century context in which many New Brunswick cultural identities were constructed and address the findings of the Canadians and Their Pasts survey in a province where popular engagement with history is complicated by diverse perceptions of the past. Resume Le Nouveau-Brunswick est le produit de guerres ayant eu lieu entre 1689 et 1815. Pendant ces guerres, qui ont toutes eu des batailles en sol nord-americain, des relations sociales se sont tissees entre les Premieres nations, les Francais et les Britanniques; souvent, ils etaient unis par les liens du sang. Ces conflits sont a la source d’identites mutables, mais qui etaient, en apparence, mutuellement exclusives et qui ont fait l’objet d’une recente enquete qui portait sur les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick et sur la facon qu’ils evoquent le passe au quotidien. Dans cet expose, nous decrivons le contexte du 18e siecle dans lequel de nombreuses identites culturelles du Nouveau-Brunswick se sont formees et nous nous penchons sur les resultats du sondage portant sur les Canadiens et leur passe et ce, dans une province ou l’engagement populaire envers l’histoire se complique par les diverses perceptions du passe.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".