Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian Studies in Italy are quite a recent development.They began in the late '70s with the first Seminars of Canadian History and Literature held at the Universities of Genova, Pisa, Bologna and Messina, respectively by Professors Raimondo Luraghi, Luca Codignola, Giovanna Capone and Giovanni Bonanno, as the result of the emerging Canadian culture -the so-called Canadian Renaissance -and of the strenghtening relationship -'a natural social tie" publisher Jack McClelland defined it' -between our two countries.Since then, they have increasingly improved: the first International Congress, held in Bologna in 1977, was followed by four others (in Pisa, Urbino, Messina, Piazza Armerina) and a Sixth one is scheduled in Fasano for next Spring.In 1979, the Italian Association of Canadian Studies was established and, now has almost © MOND Où Pb 25 Canada: metafora per la letteratura, pp.48-61.COCO int palo
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".