Index of Contributors to Crucible Magazine, 1932-1943
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crucible was a Canadian literary magazine that ran from March 1932 to April-May 1943. Crucible has been largely left out of historical surveys of Canadian little magazines, and turning our attention to Crucible now can provide us with an alternative perspective on Canadian culture through the 1930s and 1940s. Further, we cannot overlook the fact that Crucible was edited by two women: Hilda and Laura Ridley. As Dean Irvine points out in Editing Modernity: Women and Little-Magazine Cultures in Canada, 1916-1956, Hilda Ridley “should now be recognized (albeit belatedly) as one of the first woman editors of a modern literary magazine in Canada” (206). The Ridley sisters were pioneers not only for their own efforts as editors, writers, and marketers but they were also champions of poetry authored by women. To continue overlooking Crucible is to ignore a significant repository of Canadian women’s voices echoing throughout this time period. \n \nThis index is arranged by contributor. Works attached to known pseudonyms or initials are grouped together beneath the most complete name and spelling inconsistencies (such as Today versus To-day) have also been left as they originally appeared.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.130 | 0.043 |
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".