Bibliographic record
Abstract
What Next?Quoi de neuf? CIHM Conducts Survey for Phase Four ProjectThe Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions (CIHM) is surveying librarians and researchers in order to establish the current status of activities to preserve and provide access to Canadian research materials, and to détermine future needs in these areas.Past CIHM projects hâve been the filming of Pre-1900 Canadian Monographs (Phase One); Pre-1900 Canadian Annuals and Periodicals (Phase Two); and, Canadian Monographs 1900-1920 (Phase Three).One or more of these collections can be found at 37 Canadian research libraries.To assist in selecting the content for Phase Four, two surveys hâve been created, one for librarians and one for researchers.These will be mailed to selected institutions and individuals.Possible projects suggested for discussion include, but should not be limited to: 1) Canadian government publications to 1920; 2) post-1900 Canadian sériais; and, 3) Canadian monographs, post-1920.Whether or not you receive the survey directly, we encourage ail those with an interest in Canada's printed history to participate.The survey and a spécial issue of Facsimile with information about these possible future projects are both available on request or can be found at CIHM's website http://www.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.018 |
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".