Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2010 philosopher Rob Wilson secured over 2 million Canadian dollars in grant money to lead a multidisciplinary, community engaged project to examine the history and enduring impact of eugenics in western Canada. He assembled an interdisciplinary team of researchers, students and community partners. He involved survivors of Alberta’s eugenics programme in regular meetings with the academic team about research directions and dissemination plans. Participants quickly confronted difficult intellectual and practical debates about disability, responsibility, feminism, colonialism and bioethics. Participants did not share the same goals, and not everyone stayed involved. This book is Wilson’s own reflections on eugenics after having endured nearly a decade of leading a multi-faceted community–university research alliance. Full disclosure: I was a member of Wilson’s team, and I helped to oversee the archival research and some of the historical analysis. I received funds annually to hire undergraduate and graduate students, and I regularly travelled to Edmonton to meet with other team members, eugenics survivors and student interns. I benefited from the larger project personally and academically.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".