Bibliographic record
Abstract
It should not surprise me, I suppose, that writing a preface to this book is a kind of reckoning.Most prefaces, introductions, or addresses to the reader are written when the project is finished.I think of the times, reviewing books, when I have held writers to account, and not always generously, for their explanations, their justifications of what they have done.So I sit here looking out my workroom window, looking away from my desk.The world around me this morning is white; the snow is new, pristine; the air is dense, hazy.The sunlight on this cold, still, bleak day is diffused.On January 21, 1995, Dorothy Joudrie was arrested for attempting to murder her estranged husband Earl, a successful Canadian corporate executive.On that sunny winter Saturday morning, as Dorothy waited for her husband to visit her, she could not have imagined the turmoil she experienced that day and has continued to experience since then.In a few moments that morning, Dorothy changed her life and the lives of her husband and their four children forever.I think of how I have spent the past four years-reading, thinking, remembering, talking, listening, watching, and writing, writing..I think of the afternoon in 1995 when I sat in a quiet corner in a coffee shop at the University of Calgary with Penney Kome, an established writer and an editor of NeWest Review, while we discussed an article I wanted to write about Dorothy Joudrie.When I had asked her if NeWest would be interested in my article, we talked of my concern about Dorothy, my interest in her, my sense of identification with her, partly because we had been schoolmates when we were children.Dorothy and I experienced the same societal expectations of girls and women during the years immediately following World War II, the years that prepared us for our adult lives.Most girls accepted IX
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.633 | 0.506 |
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".