Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontario since Confederation: A Reader is a collection of essays dealing with the history of Ontario.Although that may seem a straightforward statement of fact, it is by no means obvious what the subject matter of such a collection should be.There is considerable debate over what constitutes 'Ontario' history.For some, Ontario history simply refers to the history of the province of Ontario.According to this definition, Ontario is but one region of the many that make up Canada.Many historians have found this 'limited' definition of Ontario history problematic.As Michael Piva puts it, while no one denies that Ontario is a region of sorts, it is a region that seems to defy description or analysis.1 Firm portrayals of Ontario's distinctive regional character are rare.It becomes difficult to determine which topics would be included in a history of 'Ontario as a region' when few people are certain what defines Ontario as a region.One of the main reasons why Ontario has not been clearly defined as a region is that, until recently, many Ontarians failed to regard Ontario as a region at all.Instead, any sense of regional pride was so closely associated with national pride that Ontario and Canada were almost blended into one entity, with many Ontarians assuming that what was best for Ontario was best for the nation.2 Accordingly, most historians of Ontario did not see themselves as Ontario historians.As Peter Oliver argues, for most of the twentieth century 'there seems to have been a tacit, almost unthinking assumption that a regional approach to Ontario history was neither necessary nor appropriate.' 3 The one clear aspect of Ontario's historical identity that historians could agree on was a confident acceptance of the province's dominant role in Canadian Confederation.The fact that so many Ontario politicians played a leading role in defining and defending Canadian na-Preface
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.535 | 0.289 |
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".