MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471917772 · doi:10.7202/1036856ar

History of the Book in Canada: The View from Here

2016· article· en· W2471917772 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Carole Gerson

Bibliographic record

VenueMémoires du livre · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRealmPublishingMulticulturalismReading (process)Theme (computing)PopulationMedia studiesLibrary sciencePolitical scienceHistorySocial scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMémoires du livreSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207