MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191093149 · doi:10.3138/chr-102.s1-000

Re-presenting Riel: 100 Years in the <i>Canadian Historical Review</i>

2021· article· en· W3191093149 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Max Hamon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLunaticProfessionalizationHEROHistoryContext (archaeology)IndigenousProtestantismPolitical scienceGender studiesLawSociologyArtLiteratureArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Linked to national crises, particularly the Resistances (previously called Rebellions) of 1869 and 1885, Riel is probably the most written about person in Canadian history. As a result, he has been presented and re-presented for different interests: Catholic martyr to Protestant violence, a French patriot crushed by English fanatics, a spiritual leader, a deranged lunatic, the father of a nation, and an Indigenous hero. This introduction reflects on the significance of Riel for Canadian historical research and writing over the hundred years of existence of the Canadian Historical Review (CHR). It argues that the CHR has been an important vehicle for the professionalization of historical practice in Canada, and Riel has played an important part in that process. This introductory essay provides context and a discussion of the shifting approaches and interpretations of Riel in the CHR, identifying four phases: Civilizing and un-Civilizing Riel; Americanizing and un-Americanizing Riel; Mystifying and De-Mystifying Riel; and Provincializing Canada. It concludes that the history of Louis Riel is entwined with the emergence of professional history in Canada.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.031
Science and technology studies0.0100.011
Scholarly communication0.0140.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207