MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164435475 · doi:10.33137/ijournal.v6i2.36459

Mary Leslie: The Journey of A Lost Canadian Author

2021· article· en· W3164435475 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Madeleine Krucker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe iJournal Student Journal of the Faculty of Information · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and cultural studies analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudience measurementPassionDepictionRomancePerspective (graphical)HistoryStorytellingPublicationLiteratureArt historySociologyClassicsLawArtPolitical sciencePsychologyNarrativeVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the life of a Canadian writer of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries named Mary Leslie who experienced moderate success as an author. Despite her numerous efforts to write and publish stories, she failed to gain a public readership and was almost entirely forgotten by history. Her single novel is impossible to find and is ignored by both literary and Canadian historians alike in spite of its unique depiction of mid-nineteenth century rural Ontario and its unconventional perspective of class, gender, and romance of her time. This paper follows Leslie’s transatlantic journey within the literary world to provide a perspective on the experiences of Canadian women, their barriers, and areas of opportunity that could have afforded them success. By drawing heavily on the analysis of archival material, including correspondence, financial records, published and unpublished manuscripts, a vibrant woman with a passion for storytelling is revealed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0610.013
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe iJournal Student Journal of the Faculty of InformationSame topicLegal and cultural studies analysisFrench-language works237,207