Bibliographic record
Abstract
twenty years ago I intended to write the story of my life, a memoir of my fifty-seven years until then.I put the idea aside as those events and my feelings at the time seemed too close, too fresh, perhaps too painful, to form any kind of balanced evaluation of what had happened during those years.Now that I am safely removed from those times I feel ready to write about that period, especially my thirty-seven years in the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits), from the middle to the mid-eighties of the last century.Why would I write such a story?I postponed this project for all those years, but I feel that now, before it is too late, I should record this modicum of history and examine a structure, a method, a point of view that is past, never to return, yet also a structure by which many of us today, even those who were born after that period, are still influenced, and in which in a sense some of us still share.Over the centuries the Jesuits have been one of the most powerful and effective institutions in the Catholic Church and their constitutions and manner of life have influenced many of the Catholic religious congregations, including the nuns, over the past 500 years.In Quebec, for example, until thirty years ago almost every family had at least one priest, nun, or brother in one or other of the multitudinous religious groups in the province.Now that phenomenon has irretrievably vanished, but it is still part of the history of Quebec, of Canada, and of Christianity.It is with some hesitation that I write about my time with the Jesuits, who have striven for centuries with astounding success to
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.597 | 0.408 |
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".