MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312943283 · doi:10.25071/0848-1563.39692

Rescue the “Parishing”: Henry Budd – Constructive Transformer or Colonial Tool?

2017· article· en· W4312943283 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Keith Hyde

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Papers · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity College of the North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismConstructiveComputer scienceHistoryArchaeologyProgramming languageProcess (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, and most recently, the territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. The territory was the subject of the Dish With One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, an agreement between the Iroquois Confederacy and the Ojibwe and allied nations peaceably to share and care for the resources around the Great Lakes. This territory is also covered by the Upper Canada Treaties. 1 I bring greetings from the Elders of the University College of the North in Northern Manitoba, whose two campuses and twelve regional centres are built on "the traditional territory of the Mushkegowuk Inninnowuk or Swampy Cree, Dene, Saulteax, Oji-Cree, Anishinabe and Metis." 2 I would also like briefly to alert you to the use of certain terms that are no longer used to describe First Nations and Indigenous peoples, but which were commonly used in the nineteenth century. When dealing with historical persons from the past, largely through oral narratives or written documents that have been left behind, it is sometimes necessary to remind ourselves that these people were complex, dynamic, and fallible humans responding to a plethora of competing desires, cultural guidelines, and challenging contexts. Henry Budd was no different.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.275 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical PapersSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207