MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W343184596 · doi:10.7202/010317ar

The 2003 Presidential Address of the CHA

2005· article· en· W343184596 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Mary Vipond

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsHistoriographyMass mediaTheme (computing)HistoryIdentity (music)EmpireConstruct (python library)Media studiesWorld War IIInstitutionHistory of ChinaChinaSociologyClassicsPolitical scienceSocial scienceLawArtAncient historyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the seminal works of Harold Innis, communication has been a major theme in Canadian history and historiography. Internationally as well, scholars such as Benedict Anderson, Karl Deutsch and John B. Thompson have recognized the centrality of communication systems, particularly the mass media, to the development of the modern world. Unfortunately Canadian historians have not shown much interest in studying the mass media as a formative force in modern Canadian history. Data from the CHA's Register of Dissertations are used to demonstrate the paucity of graduate student research, especially about broadcasting, and some explanations for the neglect are proffered. The paper concludes with an examination of the CBC's Empire Day Broadcast, a central event of the Royal Tour of 1939. This case study demonstrates how one mass media institution worked to construct identity and evoke tradition. It illustrates some of the linkages between the history of the mass media and other current preoccupations of historians, including cultural history (especially the study of spectacles and commemorations) and imperial history (relationships within the British-North American world as World War II approached).

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)0.002
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1360.039

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207