MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098843875

10th ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL ISSUE OF CRITICAL RACE AND WHITENESS STUDIES Vanishing at the border

2015· article· en· W7098843875 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismRace (biology)Entitlement (fair division)Power (physics)MythologyNationalismTourismIndigenousDominionHegemony
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Literature on Canadian nationalism suggests that living in Canada is living the border, a frustratingly self-conscious place to be. The border divides Canada from the U.S., but this is secondary to its colonial function. In parcelling out land between the two settler nations, it acts as a colonial border, a marker of settler power and entitlement on Native lands. First Nations are both at home on their lands and profoundly alienated from them within the settler state. Nowhere could this be more apparent than at Niagara Falls, where the image of a dying Native woman, known as the Maid of the Mist, helped to form the tourist industry. In 1996 the myth of the maid was abandoned by its chief promoter, the Maid of the Mist Steamboat Corporation. This abandonment sparks questions of visibility and representation, community and responsibility. What does the Maid of the Mist’s presence obscure or render invisible? What does her absence make visible? These questions contribute to the interrogation of the settler nation, and in acknowledging them, the settler nation is challenged to become the decolonial nation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207