Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Grenfell Mission was a medical mission in the remote areas of Labrador and the Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland.While the Mission began in 1892, this book starts in 1906 with the establishment of the Industrial, a cottage industry that became an important part of the Mission by providing for the making of handicrafts as a means of supplementing the local economy.The Industrial is chronicled here with a sole emphasis on hooked mats; a significant number of other products was also produced but they are not the focus of this book, though some are mentioned in passing.I have endeavoured to answer the many questions relating to the hooked mats: Who hooked them?Is it possible to date a mat precisely?Can a mat-hooker recognize her own work?What does a name or a number on a mat label mean?Who designed the mats?What were the sources and the inspiration for the designs?Above all, how did the mat-hookers feel about the Industrial, the Mission, and their craft?The smallest bits of information often filled the largest gaps.I travelled by small plane and open boat, visiting nearly every community having ties to Dr Grenfell and the Industrial.Fog, tumultuous seas, and wind hampered my efforts at times and, sadly, elderly mat-hookers had passed away, leaving no memories behind.Such setbacks aside, mat-hookers gave me the gift of their time, welcoming me into their homes with generosity and enthusiasm and willingly sharing their stories.Their eyes came alive as we pored over hundreds
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.572 | 0.435 |
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".