Bibliographic record
Abstract
It may be due to a Canadian sense of modesty, or perhaps to centuries spent as a colonial outpost of great empires, but Canadians have not been inclined to look upon themselves as important players on the world intellectual stage.They appear to themselves to be off to the side, given a line now and then, but generally destined to be supporting cast to the great centres of Western thought.Indeed, for most of Canada's history it has been normal for Canadians and Canadiens to go abroad, especially to England, France, and the United States, to study under the world's acknowledged experts in history, economics, literature, the sciences, and other domains of learning.In addition to being an importer of capital to build its railways, finance its factories, and develop its natural resources, Canada has been an importer of ideas.There is nothing wrong, least of all in the world of ideas, with learning from others and importing the best of what is on offer.In this sense Canadians were enthusiastic globalists long before globalization entered the lexicon.But long years of turning their eyes outward may have caused Canadians to neglect what was growing in their own backyard and to assume that made-in-Canada, at least in the realm of ideas, signified something parochial, probably derivative, and almost certainly second-rate.Whatever else one might say of it, Canadian political thought is none of these things.At the same time it is only fitting, and certainly
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.491 | 0.282 |
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".