Bibliographic record
Abstract
RUDOLPH VECOLI AND I first met during a chilly November weekend of 1986 in Minneapolis. He was hosting an international conference on transatlantic migrations in honor of the renowned English historian Frank Thistlethwaite. An attentive observer of research being undertaken outside the U.S., he saw fit to invite me to give a paper on my work on Italian and French Canadian migrations. I met him again a few years later in Toronto’s Little Italy, this time in sad circumstances, following the sudden death of historian Robert Harney. Spending a day in mourning for the passing of a dear and common friend perhaps helped to bring us closer in a human rapport that in some ways transcended our mutual academic interests, a rapport that would never recede as our paths kept crossing at conferences in North America and in Italy. In the last of these encounters overseas—in Genoa in 2004—Rudi talked to me at length, as we strolled along the city’s docks, about his research on Celso Moreno, an adventurous transnational figure who for years had fascinated him. I understood that this was going to be his major scholarly project following his imminent retirement. I suspect it was not easy for Rudi to adjust to the new life regimen imposed by retirement, for he asked and obtained permission to teach a course in immigration history. Meanwhile, he had filled the stacks of his small studio with archival material he had collected that documented the life and exploits of Celso Moreno. I also suspect he was spending much of his time working on that material. When I saw him again in 2006, I was struck by the transformation in his outward appearance. I was well into the presentation of a paper at an IHRCsponsored panel when I noticed him entering the hall and sitting in the first row, just below the podium—the concentrated gaze of someone with hearing difficulties. He wore a lumberjack shirt and a baseball hat, and his long silver hair was neatly collected into a ponytail. I have often reflected on that rapid physical transformation: a conscious attempt to alter his public persona, or rather the expression of a freedom from conventions he was now determined to enjoy? During the refreshment, Rudi apologized for having arrived late
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.096 | 0.078 |
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".