Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume grew out of a desire on the part of the editors and some of the other contributors to see the history and politics of our two sister societies compared with one another rather than, as is traditional, with that of the United Kingdom and the United States.Some of us were particularly interested in promoting more contact and exchange among Canadian and Australian scholars who were investigating various features of the two societies.Because some of us were individually involved in aspects of federalist studies, an examination of the early evolution of federalism in what once were the two sister dominions seemed quite an appropriate area in which to begin comparisons.The project was initiated by Bruce Hodgins when in 1970 he spent two terms as an honorary fellow of the history department of the Australian National University in Canberra.Close ties were then established among Don Wright, Ron Norris, the Reverend John Eddy and himself.We agreed that no single historian in either country then had the knowledge, inclination or wit to write a comprehensive comparative history of early federalism in the two societies.Even an introductory study would have to be a multiauthor effort, and most of the individual chapters would have to deal with an historical aspect of only one of the two federations.Comparisons would flow implicitly from the overall collection and explicitly from the Introduction and Epilogue.Bruce Hodgins returned to Australia for a month over Christmas-New Years, 1973-74, to facilitate final Australian and joint arrangements.Meanwhile, we were putting together the Canadian part of the team.Three of the Canadians, Welf Heick, Ken Pryke and Bruce Hodgins, had all studied British Empire history, with a "dominion" emphasis, under the late W. B. Hamilton of Duke
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.391 | 0.205 |
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".