Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is safe to say that I have always had an unusual preoccupation with contrasting Canadian and American identities -mythologized, essentialized, or otherwise "imagined."As an undergraduate at McGill University I was fortunate to be taught by professors who indulged and inspired my interest in comparative history.In particular, Martin Fetter, Stephen J. Randall, and John Herd Thompson introduced me to the idea of the North Atlantic triangle and the flow of ideas and influence between Canada, Britain, and the United States.Later, as a graduate student at Queen's University, I wrote a master's thesis comparing the work-relief system of Canada's Department of National Defence to the American New Deal's Civilian Conservation Corps.And, believe it or not, in the strange ways of history, historiography, and historical imagination, American philanthropy and the arts and letters in Canada are just three or four easy steps away from Depression-era work-relief camps.Although it is difficult to trace the exact sequence (and I doubt that it was very exact in any case), this is how I remember making the connection.After documenting and analysing the nuts and bolts of the two relief programs -wages paid to workers, hours worked, conditions in camps, type of labour completed, and workers' attitudes -my mind wandered to matters more "cultural," and I researched and wrote about the Civilian Conservation Corps's little-known art and photography.In fairly quick order this led me to literature on better-known and more influential New Deal art and photography programs such as the Works Progress Administration's (WPA'S) Public Works of Art
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.460 | 0.251 |
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".