Bibliographic record
Abstract
since history is the art of interpreting the significant past, as opposed to merely recording all that happened, it is a necessarily selective craft.In this work, the principle of selection is the effort to identify and analyze the general ethos and specific events that gave McMaster its particular personality, during the period from 1957 to 1987.Phrased differently, focus is on the definition and evolution of the whole, rather than on groups or individuals.thus, some, perhaps many, readers will be disappointed that there is no mention of this or that unquestionably worthy person; no chapters devoted explicitly to women, or minorities, let alone each and every department.two primary reasons informed these choices.one is the extremely uneven nature of the evidence.the departmental papers of mathematics, for example, lie (quite literally) encased in concrete: victims of mould and mildew.More decisive, however, was the desire to maintain clear thematic, interpretive, and narrative flow.had whatever evidence exists suggested that the experience of gays, lesbians, women, first nations people, or visa students was significantly different at McMaster than at other contemporary Canadian universities, it would have been integrated into this study of that which was particular to the university, in the age under review.Where usage is concerned, the voice of the era has been retained, for the sake of consistency and accuracy.thus, until very late in the period, there were no "chairpersons"; only "chairmen," regardless the gender of the office holder.In like manner, official documents regularly spoke of all faculty members as "he." the intent, here, is not to spurn today's more enlightened diction but to reflect faithfully the hour.one, for example, would never write of the "chairperson of W.e. Gladstone's cabinet committee on tariffs."If offence be taken, please be assured that none is intended.
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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.572 | 0.357 |
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".