MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978856702 · doi:10.3138/flor.33.001

Introduction: What Do We Study When We Study Manuscripts in Canada?

2016· article· en· W2978856702 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
David Watt

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Context (archaeology)Value (mathematics)HistoryClassicsSociologyArchaeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay invites readers to see the special issue of Florilegium it introduces as an opportunity to reflect on the scope and context of manuscript studies in Canada. The essays in this volume attest to the range of medieval manuscripts in Canada and their value for the study of medieval culture. When studied in their Canadian context, these European manuscripts also provide insight into the functions they might serve in a settler culture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.013
Science and technology studies0.0440.022
Scholarly communication0.0380.008
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlorilegiumSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207