MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404582816 · doi:10.3138/chr-2024-0061

Dialogues with the Past: A Life in History

2024· article· en· W4404582816 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lyle Dick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsPublic historyHistoryPoliticsPublic serviceProfessionalizationSociologyMedia studiesPolitical scienceSocial sciencePublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article recounts the author’s career as a public historian, involvement in academic writing, and aspects of his philosophy of history as they pertain to changes and continuities in historical practice and current trends in the field of Canadian history. It follows his path from undergraduate studies at Brandon University, graduate work at the University of Manitoba, and his thirty-five-year career at Parks Canada while based in Winnipeg, Ottawa-Gatineau, Victoria, and Vancouver. Also elaborated are his various activities in heritage conservation and public history, service on boards and committees, and his principal publications, how they came about, and the content of these works. The article credits some of the intellectual influences and historical mentors who helped shape his development as a historian. His early grassroots political activism and community engagement are also touched upon insofar as they influenced his approach to history. Also recounted are some of the challenges he was obliged to overcome in order to become a successful public servant, scholar, and consultant involved in the wider community of history and heritage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.014
Science and technology studies0.0410.070
Scholarly communication0.0270.013
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207