Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prologue "Greetings from Resisterville." This was the headline of the New York Times article about the small Canadian town of Nelson, British Columbia, whose tumultuous political affairs had come under the scrutiny of national and international politicians, observers, and news media in the fall of 2004.The article was among many from news agencies including the Globe and Mail, the BBC, CNN, and Fox News that provided coverage of events in the British Columbia community.But while the author of the New York Times piece explained that the town has "long been a haven for free spirits, " this doesn't begin to account for how this "haven" of less than ten thousand people in the remote mountains of southeastern BC could inspire such intrigue.The international interest in the town in 2004 stemmed from the efforts of a group of local residents who had unveiled a plan to erect a statue celebrating the contributions of the large group of Vietnam War "draft dodgers" who had made their way to the region between 1965 and 1973.Explaining their motivations, one of the organizers commented that "this monument will mark the courageous legacy of Vietnam War resisters and the Canadians who helped them resettle in this country during that tumultuous era." 1 When plans for the statue were made public, however, controversy exploded locally and internationally.A firestorm erupted on the pages of the local newspaper, the Nelson Daily News, as reams of letters to the editor from residents either condemned or celebrated the idea for the proposal.At the height of the controversy, the public discourse echoed the divisive debate that had surrounded the actions of the war resisters since the war in Vietnam, alternating between descriptions
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.700 | 0.500 |
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".