The preservation collection of Canadiana: A national heritage collection at 50
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On January 1st, 1953, the National Library of Canada came into being. Established by the Parliament of Canada, the National Library was charged with the stewardship of the country's published heritage. Specific responsibilities included compiling a bibliography of books published in Canada and preserving the published heritage of the nation for the benefit of its citizens. The principal means by which the Library would acquire Canadian books was legal deposit whereby publishers were obliged, at their own expense, to send two copies of their publications to the Library within 1 week of publication. In addition, the Library could enter into agreements and exchanges to acquire material from governments and agencies both within the country and abroad. From this general mandate to build a heritage collection for the nation evolved the concept of a specifically designated preservation collection. In February 1988, the National Library created the Preservation Collection of Canadiana as a means of safeguarding the domestic published heritage. The goal, simply stated, was to preserve one copy of all original material published in the country. This paper considers the daunting task of creating such a preservation collection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".