Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study's goal is to enhance the debate about how to assess and promote the quality of societal life by drawing attention to the importance of a dimension that, in our opinion, has not been sufficiently emphasized.Our concern is to highlight the nature and importance of the social infrastructure and its basis in a civic covenant which defines what, as citizens, we can expect in our social relations, what we owe to each other, and what we owe to society.We believe that an exploration of the civic covenant in Canadian society is timely, because of the articulation and diffusion of a more narrow market view of what the health of a society entails.Our audience is not primarily academic.Indeed, in addition to scholars, we seek to engage policy makers and the general public.We hope that our analysis is of interest to civil servants, researchers in publicpolicy institutes, journalists, social analysts, people active in nongovernmental organizations, and advocacy groups concerned with pressing social issues.This study began as part of a larger research initiative, "Individuals, Institutions and the Social Contract in Canada," directed by Paul Reed.Its data comes primarily from a Canada-wide representative survey which was conducted for us by the Environics Research Group.The construction of the interview schedule for the large-scale survey was based partly on the results of in-depth interviews, carried out in an earlier phase of the study, with a small sample of people of diverse backgrounds in Toronto, Montreal, Riviere-du-Loup, and Pembroke.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.465 | 0.273 |
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".