MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080079532 · doi:10.3138/chr-2020-0022

The Return of Quantitative Approaches to Canadian History

2020· article· en· W3080079532 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Peter Baskerville, Kris Inwood

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusVariety (cybernetics)GeographyHistoryRegional scienceLibrary sciencePolitical scienceGenealogyDemographySociologyComputer sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important kind of digital-based research – the use of quantitative sources and analysis – expanded in Canadian history journals during the 1970s and 1980s, declined in the 1990s, and then has increased again since the early years of the new millennium. A wide variety of sources are being digitized and used for historical research that is wholly or, more commonly, partially quantitative in nature. The Canadian census is the most widely used of these sources. Access to census resources will improve considerably with the completion of a project currently in progress, which is entitled The Canadian Peoples/Les populations canadiennes, https://thecanadianpeoples. com.

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 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)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.045 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207