Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This interdisciplinary essay shows how Canadian scholarship could benefit from a greater under-standing of public space on Parliament Hill and the people who organize and use the Parliamen-tary precinct. It argues that the values and stories Canadians create about the Hill influence key institutional actors who in turn shape events and interactions that unfold every day around the precinct. While space on the Hill is heavily regulated, the precinct acts as a public space because many of the individuals charged with its management perceive and organize it like one, and because Canadians committed to saving abandoned cats, visiting the Peace Tower, or demon-strating for social change use it like one. Nevertheless, interventions by parliamentarians as well as multi-billion-dollar renovations necessitated by the precinct’s crumbling physical infrastructure threaten to reconfigure debates permanently about who can access the Hill. Cet article interdisciplinaire montre comment les universitaires canadiens pourraient bénéficier d’une meilleure compréhension de l’espace public sur la colline du Parlement et des gens qui organisent et utilisent la Cité parlementaire. L’article avance que les valeurs et les histoires créées par les Canadiens à propos de la Colline influent sur les principaux acteurs institutionnels qui façonnent les événements et interactions qui se déroulent quotidiennement dans la Cité. Bien
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.004 |
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".