Bibliographic record
Abstract
When this book was first published in 1988, it was the collaboration of two historians of quite different ages, personalities, interests, and backgrounds.We were and are a disparate team.One of us was raised in the Yukon, the other in Ontario.One was drawn to the study of Yukon history by the absence of historical analysis about a region he viewed as his home land; to the other, the Yukon provided an opportunity to study the evolution of Canadian attitudes and policies towards the North, stemming from an early interest in the rcmp.The book represented a union of these approaches -an attempt to see the North from both the inside and the outside.In the first edition, we tried to incorporate the entire Yukon into our investigation.We believed then, and we still do, that in the past the activities of newcomers to the Yukon -explorers, traders, miners, and government officials -had attracted most of the attention from researchers and writers.The First Nations people, until thirty years ago, were wrongly relegated to the background.The irony of this is obvious, for the aboriginal people of the Yukon have persisted in occupying their corner of the world, while non-aboriginals, as a group, demonstrated in the past surprisingly little commitment to the territory, moving in and out as the seasons and business cycles dictated.The history of the Yukon should be the history of both groups and of the relationship between them.We have tried to bring these often separate strands of Yukon history together in the hope that aboriginals and whites will recognize how their histories -and their futures -are very much intertwined.This book also reflects our belief that the history of the Yukon Territory is far more than the experience of the Klondike gold rush and the building of the Alaska Highway.In the past, these dramatic events drew most of the P R E F A C E T O T
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.402 | 0.353 |
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".