How a community understands its past: oral history, archaeology and identity in Placentia, Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the majority of the residents interviewed for this research, their personal history involved the experience of being from someplace other than the original Placentia. Their main attachment to Placentia and its history is through the authorized heritage myth of the town as the "ancient French capital" epitomized by the archaeological excavations that were being conducted at the time of my fieldwork. For the majority of people I spoke with the town's history is most important for its role in the development of economic opportunities to be derived from heritage tourism. Two reasons for this are that a lack of personal experience with Placentia's Past makes it easier for the community to adopt well-constructed narratives of the French and British occupations and, at the time of this research, economic viability was the most important item on the town's agenda. The story of the "ancient French capital" was the epitome of economic opportunities provided by the archaeological excavations and the potential for future income resulting from the development of heritage tourism products. The myth of the ancient French capital provides a means for individuals to attach themselves to a place where they have limited personal experience. It is an accepted narrative that provides a foundation for belonging at the community level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".