Knowing your public(s) : The significance of audiences in public history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From April 17 to 20th, 2013, the National Council on Public History (NCPH) will return to Canada to hold its annual meeting with its joint host, the newly established International Federation for Public History. The NCPH meeting model is unlike most historical conferences in Canada, and in addition to the typical panel sessions, it includes hands-on skill-based workshops; working groups which begin discussions before the conference and often produce a best practices or policy paper; a THAT Camp (The Humanities and Technology Camp), a digital\n‘unconference’ workshop; a free public plenary; formal networking opportunities for graduate students and new professionals; two minute Lightning Talks which showcase digital projects; a poster session; Dine Arounds which pair facilitated discussion with dinner; and tours of the city and Ottawa museums. Together, the joint conference offers four packed days with over sixty sessions and over twenty tours, workshops, and special events.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.003 |
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".