Bibliographic record
Abstract
National book history projects are both informative and provocative: informative for the resources they assemble and the knowledge they promote, and provocative for their omissions and limitations. The History of the Book in Canada/Histoire du livre et de l’imprimé au Canada (3 vols 2004-2007) provided a remarkable opportunity for a large community of researchers across the country to investigate myriad aspects of Canada’s print culture in an increasingly multicultural population. Their focal points included authorship, publishing, distribution, and reading. The project established a baseline for subsequent studies in areas that were revealed to be under-researched and it continues to inspire new scholarly investigations. Working in both official languages, HBiC/HLIC’s editorial team forged a model for bilingual scholarly dissemination, a format that is surprisingly rare in the humanities in Canada. At the national level, its three volumes and many offshoots have enriched Canadians’ knowledge about themselves; at the international level, the project has established the presence of a relatively small country within the realm of global book history. As international book history scholars become increasingly conscious of the need to situate their investigations within trans-national contexts, we invite them to consider Canada’s stories and examples.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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.
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".