Bibliographic record
Abstract
My expectations for university were quite idealistic: I thought of university as sort of a hallowed place where you were going to have all these wonderful discussions -it was the idealized university.(GR)McGill is well known as an elite, international university, consistently ranking first or second in Canada and among the top in the world. 1 While the primary reason professors report being drawn to the university is the availability of a job in their field, almost all of the students I interviewed had chosen McGill because of its excellent reputation.Students had been advised by family members, peers, and faculty members at other institutions that if they had the chance to attend McGill they should take it.As DN was told: "If you get into McGill then gofor sure!" KB said that everyone he consulted, "from teachers to parents to any family member," strongly encouraged him to "apply to the presumed best university in Canada," based on the belief that the "elite university experience would give a certain amount of prestige."Both international students and those from Canada referred specifically to global rankings and the renowned reputation of the university internationally.Indeed, one student appeared to feel trapped by the university's reputation even as they called it into question: "I just feel like, I don't know, I'm one of those people who despite what I know about the world I still adhere to this meritocracy bullshit, so in my head I'm like I have to go to the best schools."Especially among members of local Black communities, myths of meritocracy intersect with race and class to make McGill seem generally out of reach.As one former student shares: "There was, I remember growing up, in CEGEP and stuff, this perspective, particularly in … the anglophone Black community, a sense that McGill was inaccessible and that we all go to Concordia.There was nothing that aggravated me
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".