Bibliographic record
Abstract
On Banalityetween 1910 and 1921, the Winnipeg-based household magazine The Western Home Monthly opened most issues with an informal editorial feature called "A Chat with Our Readers."Written in an anonymous editorial "we" that often expanded to include the reader, this section was characteristic of the magazine's combination of domestic coziness and explicit nationalism, hailing a public of western Canadians with an investment in the national project.An example is how frequently the chat describes the magazine's readership through the metaphor of the household.The January 1920 chat, for instance, features a letter from "a lady reader" that places the magazine physically within the home: "In every farm home in which I have yet been I have seen The Monthly, and the farmer of to-day is 'no slouch' when it comes to home comforts, as I daresay you know."The letter goes on to link the magazine to other comforts of the home, such as pianos and "laborsaving devices in the kitchen" (3).In May 1920, the editors extended this metaphor of their readership as a household:Every subscriber represents a good Western home -the very home that looms to-day as Canada's brightest hope.Every additional name to our subscription list strengthens the bulwark of home builders, home dwellers and home lovers.If you agree with us that the home is the magnet towards which all good things should gravitate, then you are in a special sense eligible for membership in the great family that constitute our readers. . . .Our mail box, in a very special way, reflects the minds of our readers -and how the striving for an ideal home is the predominating thought. . . .What is your home problem?If you are a woman with home interests read the Woman's Quiet Hour, Young Woman and Her Problem, Mother's Section, Kitchen Department, Home Doctor, Fashions and Patterns, etc.The young folks and even the small chil-
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".