MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2261623666 · doi:10.1353/his.2015.0049

Co-operative Consuming: Ontario Beef Rings, 1899-1945

2015· article· fr· W2261623666 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Andrea M. Gal

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgrarian societyConsumption (sociology)InstitutionPopulationAgricultural economicsWork (physics)ShareholderBusinessGeographyAgricultureEconomicsSociologySocial scienceEngineeringDemographyArchaeologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les historiens canadiens se penchent de plus en plus sur les pratiques et les modes de consommation, mais leur travail porte habituellement sur les zones urbaines. Les habitants des campagnes ont pourtant continué de former une proportion importante de la population canadienne jusqu’au début des années 1940. Le présent article, axé sur l’Ontario, traite d’une institution caractéristique du milieu rural: l’association ou le cercle de consommateurs de bœuf frais. Selon l’auteure, il s’agit d’une méthode de consommation propre aux agriculteurs, et les participants étaient en général des propriétaires d’exploitations moyennement ou bien à l’aise. Remettant en question l’apparente dichotomie entre l’autosuffisance et l’intégration complète au marché, les membres de ces regroupements ont combiné des notions de coopération et de relations au marché. Ils ont surmonté les limites de la technologie et eu accès à de la viande de bœuf fraîche à la ferme au cours des mois les plus chauds de l’année.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.228 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207