Bibliographic record
Abstract
I first considered writing a biography of Archbishop James Morrison during two pleasant summers spent as an undergraduate archivist (and sometimes tour guide) at St Ninian's Cathedral, Antigonish's Tigh Dhe.At that time, all that remained in the parish office of the diocese's longest-serving, and arguably most important, administrator was an episcopal ring (locked away in a safe), a damaged and badly stowed mantle clock, and a poorly framed photograph hanging in an anteroom.My curiosity in the long-forgotten prelate eventually morphed into graduate work in the Atlantic Canada Studies program at Saint Mary's University in Halifax.I, like many who enrolled in the program over the years, was fortunate enough to study under John G. Reid, one of the foremost experts in the region's history.It was an ideal environment for a careful study of a contentious figure.Terry Murphy read the manuscript in various capacities, provided both criticism and advice and, years later, graciously offered to share his office space with me.James D. Cameron, whose history of St F.X. is a tremendous resource for historians of the Antigonish Movement, read portions of the manuscript, suggested improvements, and invited me into the faculty lounge for discussion (at that time a privilege for a newish graduate student).I am extremely grateful to the Diocese of Antigonish for permission to consult the Morrison papers.The collection is copious, and I spent many hours researching at the Chancery Office.The archive is well organized and carefully maintained, but it is not large, and for many weeks I took up considerable space in a busy office (with never a complaint from the occupants).I would like to thank the bishops of
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.337 | 0.208 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".