Bibliographic record
Abstract
A note on SourcesFor my research on the history of Winnipeg Beach I have depended on a great many sources, from fictional retellings of life at the beach, to news reports and photographs, and, most importantly, to interviews with people for whom this particular beach community was a place important to their lives.Gabrielle Roy, Bess Kaplan, and Harold Dundas provide literary accounts of Winnipeg Beach.All three give vivid descriptions of the Winnipeg Beach experience.But these descriptions are, as with the oral accounts, reconstructions of the Winnipeg Beach experience.These writers published their stories years after the periods they are describing.Given that, the literary sources are more interesting for how they use Winnipeg Beach than they are for their historical accuracy.Roy uses it to consider the encounter between culture and nature, and to allow her protagonist to approach the lake and encounter something bigger than herself.Kaplan's character considers questions of sexual maturity, or notions of men and women being together at the beach, while Dundas uses the trip to Winnipeg Beach as a literal and metaphorical transition of youth into sexual maturity.Winnipeg's newspapers, including the Winnipeg Free Press (called the Manitoba Free Press until 1931), the Tribune, and the Telegram, had plenty to say about Winnipeg Beach throughout the twentieth century.Advertisements tell us how Winnipeg Beach was being constructed and marketed, and their placement-they moved from the travel section to the entertainment section-tells us something of how the area was imagined.Classifieds give a glimpse of how the beach functioned on the ground and
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 | 0.009 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.355 | 0.188 |
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".