Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian Studies and the project of knowing ourselves have a long history. The initiative took a leap forward in the 1970s with the release of the Symons Report and the development of Canadian Studies programs and departments in a number of Canadian and international universities. By the 1990s, however, interest in Canadian Studies was flagging. The situation has not improved of late. This essay touches on the many reasons behind the current waning of interest in and support for Canadian Studies: economic, political, socio-cultural, and intellectual. It addresses interdisciplinarity, a foundation of the Canadian Studies project, showing how this refusal to contain knowledge within traditional academic disciplines was at first embraced by area studies but is now generalized throughout scholarly research. This has made the appeal of Canadian Studies less novel than it once was. Yet there are also corresponding developments, such as Indigenization, that reveal the extent to which new knowledge of Canadian experience can be gained through interdisciplinary research. For this research to flourish, and for the potential of Canadian Studies to be realized, scholars and others must defend old achievements in order to keep alive the possibilities of new advances in learning and of knowing ourselves more thoroughly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".