Bibliographic record
Abstract
The writing of women's history during the past three decades has been at the forefront of a fundamental rethinking of the making of contemporary Canada.In the case of the twentieth century, Framing Our Past illustrates how this rethinking has revived and greatly expanded our understanding in three key ways that are also central to the work of the Institute of Canadian Studies.First, the contributions to this volume reflect the value of connecting university campuses to the wider community.Indeed, the writing of women's history has emphasized the inappropriateness of images of "ivory towers" both for the actual discovery of knowledge about the past and for its dissemination within Canadian society.Secondly, Framing Our Past demonstrates the key difference between opinions and perspectives supported by archival research, or, in the terms of the institute's mandate, evidence-based interpretations.In rediscovering and analysing a diverse range of historical sources, the authors reject unexamined assumptions in order to offer insights based on the actual traces of thought and behaviour during the past century.Thirdly, this volume emphasizes the extent to which Canadian women's history is not only about Canada but also about the larger international history of the twentieth century.Throughout all the essays and vignettes, on topics ranging from everyday life to education, politics, health, and economics, we can see how women in Canada have both contributed to and been influenced by the transformations of societies around the world.For these and many other reasons, it has thus been a privilege for the Institute of Canadian Studies to have contributed to the completion of Framing Our Past.By connecting the campus to the community, by focusing on evidence, and by situating the Canadian experience in an international context, this volume promises to contribute significantly to the prospects of a healthy and just society as we move forward in the twenty-first century.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.601 | 0.550 |
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".