MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210491917 · doi:10.1353/mlr.2016.0009

Almanacs in Francophone Canada: Adaptation and Survival

2016· article· en· W4210491917 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Modern Language Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrenchAdaptation (eye)HistoryPsychologyArchaeologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The almanac has been one of the most widely read publications in the history of printing. This article considers the very particular history of the almanac in francophone Canada by focusing on two related questions. How is it that the French-language almanac in Canada has proved so resilient, adapting to changes in the market which in most other countries resulted in the decline of the genre in the late nineteenth century? And, despite its usual categorization as belonging to ‘popular culture, in what ways has the almanac nevertheless contributed to the emergence of a strong literary tradition in francophone 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Modern Language ReviewSame topicLexicography and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207