MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807046686 · doi:10.1080/13621025.2018.1462501

Epilogue: citizenship, memory, and the curious case of Canada

2018· article· en· W2807046686 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCitizenship Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMnemonicCollective memoryCitizenshipGenerative grammarScholarshipNarrativePerspective (graphical)SociologyEpistemologyLawPolitical sciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given its increasingly multiethnic composition Canada does not fit traditional models of collective memory that imply a fixed relationship between what is remembered and the mnemonic community doing the remembering. This essay draws out some of the particularities of Canadian memory culture in order to show how it exemplifies in vitro a general principle that is emerging in scholarship; namely, that collective memory is not fixed once and for all, but is continuously emerging through the transfer of models of remembrance across groups and through the multidirectional interplay between narratives as they enter the public arena. From the perspective of this generative model, memory is not an inalienable inheritance, but an active ingredient in renegotiating the cultural boundaries between citizens in local, national, and transnational contexts.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.271 · 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