MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2468651939

Together we build: The OVC Student Wives' Auxiliary.

2016· article· en· W2468651939 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa E. Cox, Katie Anderson, Elizabeth A. Stone

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographicsContext (archaeology)Variety (cybernetics)Work (physics)Public relationsPolitical scienceSociologyEngineeringGeographyComputer scienceDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the Ontario Veterinary College (OVC) Student Wives’ Auxiliary from 1951 to the early 1990s. The formation and function of the auxiliary is explored by creating a context of other relevant auxiliaries and organizations during the time period and through archival resources housed at the OVC along with oral interviews of past Auxiliary members. The Auxiliary was formed following World War II as a social and support network for the many women whose husbands were OVC students. Meetings were held twice a month and were filled with fellowship, fundraising, and a variety of other events for families and their children. Beyond the social aspects of the group, the auxiliary organized practical veterinary, financial, and business demonstrations for its members. This practical experience was essential for many women who went on to work with their husbands in their veterinary practices, performing pre- and post-operative care and managing the finances and scheduling. The changing demographics of the veterinary profession and the broader world led to the dissolution of the auxiliary by the early 1990s.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0220.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→