MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083191562 · doi:10.29173/css84

Literature and Canadian History: A Marriage Made in Heaven?

2002· article· en· W7083191562 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Social Studies · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Social studiesQuantitative historyResearch methodologyRange (aeronautics)Bibliography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the author develops the idea that the study of historical novels has the capacity to help students develop a sense of "historical empathy." Drawing on examples taken from a wide range of historical fiction, the author suggests that for this empathetic sense to be fully realized, teachers need to apply four specific selection criteria to their choice of novels to study. As a study aid, the author provides an extensive bibliography of historical resources.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.013
Science and technology studies0.0390.033
Scholarly communication0.0190.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Social StudiesSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207