Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some books result from the steady progress of intellectual activity along well-trodden paths, with results that vary from the interesting and respectably useful to the mundane and eminently forgettable.Some, far fewer, are the result of intuitive leaps by researchers that go well beyond the norms of their particular field, with results that vary from the spectacular to the ludicrous.But this book had quite different origins.It emerged spiritually from a ceremonial fire lit to purge rather than to create, although the first proved to be a prerequisite to the second.Certainly when I started to study economics at the University of Toronto in the 1960s, I had no expectation of producing anything remotely like The History of Canadian Business.The training, by and large, was mind-numbingly orthodox, with only a few remnants from earlier, better days, which students were encouraged to treat with amused contempt.It was also easy.Acing economics courses required little more than memorizing a few quasi-mathematical formulae, then feeding them back verbatim to the instructor on exams.No original thought went rewarded.For me, the happy result was a gold medal and a scholarship to the London School of Economics to start graduate work during one of the years in the late 1960s when it was not closed by student protests.There the training was supposedly at a much higher levelwhich meant memorizing not just the original formulae but also the additional ones in the footnotes and appendices.At the Masters level I aced international trade theory by learning to manipulate geometric figures that were as effective for understanding world commerce as an examination of goat entrails would be for predicting stock market results.As a result I came to the attention of Canadian ex-pat Harry
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.698 | 0.574 |
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".