MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099740482

The Canadian National Bibliography: 50 years of continuity and change

2008· article· en· W7099740482 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHallucinations in medical conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTributeHonourGovernment (linguistics)Theme (computing)National libraryPublicationSession (web analytics)EncyclopediaCommission
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is a pleasure for me to be here today to share with you the celebration of the 50 th anniversary of Canadiana, Canada’s national bibliography. I speak on behalf of all of my colleagues at the National Library of Canada in saying we are proud of our bibliographic heritage and it is an honour for me to be the person having this opportunity to tell you about the creation and evolution of our national bibliography and some of our hopes for its future. The theme of our session today asks a question: Is bibliography indispensable or redundant? Certainly, in the early days of Canada’s history, there was no question as to the need for bibliographic services. Our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, identified the need for a national library not long after the country was created in 1867. Throughout the decades of the first half of the 20 th century, librarians and researchers repeatedly lobbied the Government of Canada to provide two essential services: bibliographic control of Canadian publications and identification and location of these resources for loan. Given the other more pressing priorities in the years immediately following the second world war, it is a tribute to the government of the day that it approved the creation in 1950 of the Canadian Bibliographic Centre to compile and publish a national bibliography and to create and maintain a national union catalogue.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHallucinations in medical conditionsFrench-language works237,207