A Leaf from Algonquin Park: Preliminary findings of a content analysis of information practice stereotypes in the documentary trail of a world-famous provincial park (1890-2018)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This longitudinal, retrospective study presents preliminary findings from an in-progress content analysis of the documentary paper trail associated with Algonquin Provincial Park. The project seeks to understand how local residents, visitors and Indigenous people of the Algonquin Park area are represented in published accounts of people who have come into contact with them, and how those representations reflect the actual information seeking behaviors of, and stereotypes associated with, these rural populations.Cette étude rétrospective longitudinale présente les résultats préliminaires d'une analyse de contenu en cours de la trace documentaire associée au parc provincial Algonquin. Le projet vise à comprendre comment les résidents locaux, les visiteurs et les Autochtones de la région du parc Algonquin sont représentés dans des comptes rendus publiés de personnes qui ont été en contact avec eux et comment ces représentations reflètent les comportements actuels de recherche d'information de ces populations rurales et les stéréotypes qui leur sont associés.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".