Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers how the scholarly history published in the pages of the Canadian Historical Review has spoken to and been shaped by broad structural changes of two kinds: those that determine scholarly practices of knowledge-making, and those that determine the meaning of nationality. Beginning with a sketch of these themes in the journal’s first seventy-five years, the article then discusses specific examples of topics related to these themes in the journal since the mid-1990s. The author emphasizes public history, reflexive scholarship, and three different ways of engaging with nationality: rejection of methodological nationalism, justifications for “nation” as a category of analysis, and contributions to the new imperial history. Emphasizing the impact of communications and transportation technologies throughout, the essay concludes with reflections on how digitization and Web 2.0 technologies are changing scholarly historians’ relations to their audiences. Sketching the opportunities and risks of our current moment of change, the author concludes that the Canadian Historical Review will adapt.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".