Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our book is grounded in primary sources, including records and correspondence of individuals and government departments.Archival records from many places across Canada were consulted, and a few were of crucial importance.Te latter include the papers of Robert A. MacKay and the correspondence, diaries, and memoranda of Mackenzie King held in Library and Archives Canada, and the voluminous papers of John W. Dafoe held in the University of Manitoba Archives.Less voluminous but signifcant were the Premiers' Papers in the British Columbia Archives and the Archives of Manitoba and key records in the Bank of Canada Archives.Also central to the book was the rich array of contemporary published work that constituted the debates of the 1930s and 1940s about government and politics.Most important were the many studies the commission prompted, including the research studies and the report itself, the provincial government briefs prepared for it, and many other contemporary government inquiries from that prolifc age of public inquiries.We have relied on a broad array of secondary sources including the work of political scientists, legal and economic historians, and political historians.Te Canadian historical studies we have been most oriented in were written over a particularly lengthy period of time.Tese range from work in the "old" or traditional political history to the "new" more explicitly multi-disciplinary political history.Each historiographical approach has been valuable in framing our arguments and interpretations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.379 | 0.206 |
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".