“Living Next to Living History”: \nWhen Official History Meets Vernacular Commemoration in Louisbourg, Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT \n \n“Living Next to Living History”: When Official History Meets Vernacular Commemoration in Louisbourg, Nova Scotia \nEmily MacLeod \n \n\tLouisbourg, Nova Scotia is a town imbued with a spirit of the past. It was only a mere decade after Louisbourg’s final siege in 1758 that inhabitants had begun to resettle on the fortification’s ruins. Louisbourg was one of the first historic sites to be considered for designation under the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (1919), which resulted in two waves of expropriations, one in 1928 and another in 1962. Due to the initial removal of twelve families in the 20s and fifty-two properties from the extensive 1962 expropriation, there remained a silence in Louisbourg’s official narrative. This thesis examines the importance of both official and vernacular knowledge in (re)creating the Louisbourg narrative – how both sides engage with history and how this contributes to an attachment to place. The decision to create personal archives, genealogies, and festivals suggests that Louisbourg residents are coming to terms with the implications of living near living-history. Ultimately, however, the park exists in the town Louisbourg, but it is not of Louisbourg. The fluidity of history is severed by this disconnect. In order for these two solitudes to mediate the distance between professional and amateur historians, both sides must come together to weave their individual threads into the larger fabric that is Louisbourg’s evolving historical narrative.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".