MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

‘Not Just Another Anonymous Spot’: Government Support for Memory Institutions in Prince Edward Island and Wales

2016· article· en· W2533557053 on OpenAlexaffabout
Simon Lloyd

Bibliographic record

VenueLondon Journal of Canadian Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies of British Isles
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)WelshSketchPublic administrationField (mathematics)Political scienceManagementSociologyPublic relationsHistoryArchaeologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In view of the important role that libraries, archives and museums – collectively referred to here as memory institutions – can play in regenerating communities that have faced economic and social difficulties, this essay examines government support for this sector in Prince Edward Island (PEI) through a comparative study with Wales. A historical sketch of the development of government administrative and planning capacity in this field in both Wales and PEI is offered, followed by a comparison of current funding commitments by each government. The study finds that relative funding levels are about the same in both jurisdictions, but that the Welsh government can offer an instructive example to the government of PEI through the former’s commitment to planning for museums, archives and libraries, and for cultural and heritage activity as whole.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLondon Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicHistorical Studies of British IslesFrench-language works237,207