Bibliographic record
Abstract
e first heard of the Wallace papers in 1985 when we were teaching history together at Brandon University.At that time, Tom Mitchell, a friend and colleague (later archivist) at Brandon University, brought them to our attention.They had been in the university archives since 1941, but apparently had been largely unexamined.A glance at them, however, was enough to convince us of their historical value, and after some false starts, we were lucky to be able to convince the Canadian Plains Research Center to publish them.We were also fortunate in our research assistants: Roberta Kempthorne, who did most of the research on which the maps are based, as well as collecting much local information, and Bruce Stadfeld, who transcribed many of the letters into readable copy in the summer of 1986.Glenn Iceton provided research support for the new introduction to the letters.Brandon University and the University of Victoria provided logistical support for the preparation of the original volume.Tom Mitchell kindly scanned the original maps and photos for the second edition.Monica Ball of the Manitoba Legislative Library provided the population statistics for Shellmouth.Another source of good fortune was the fact that when we started working on the papers in 1986 there were still members of the Shellmouth community who remembered the Wallace family.Isabel Joy, then in her nineties, had known William Wallace for decades, and had acted with him in amateur theatricals during World War I.She appears with him in the 1914 picture of the Shellmouth Amateur Dramatic Society contained in this book, and she was able to give us personal reminiscences of him.Another long-time resident of
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.380 | 0.186 |
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".