Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, "history" has taken on a new urgency, becoming an object of panicked concern to increasing numbers of people.A statue is taken down, an institution or a street is renamed, the story of a building or an estate is rewritten to include less savoury moments in the lives of its past owners, and the cry goes up that this is an unacceptable, ideologically motivated attempt to "rewrite history."This is to miss the point.Any serious attempt to look at the past necessarily entails "rewriting" history in some way, and any historian who fails to do so is not worth their salt.This is because history, and the writing of history, is not about the past.On the contrary, it is very much about the present and indeed the future -an attempt to look at the past in a way that has relevance to us and our society today and that, hopefully, will in turn serve as a guide as we move ahead.Just as Heraclitus claimed a person could not step twice into the same river, it's impossible to step twice into the same history."History" is not a fixed or even a steadily expanding set of facts, but rather a way of interpreting facts, of seeing new patterns in them, of reordering their relative importance as well as of bringing into the foreground facts that were out there in the background somewhere, but largely ignored or even suppressed.Canadian history provides a particularly vivid example of how this plays out in practice.When I was a schoolkid in Ottawa in the 1950s, "Canadian history" was a subset of "British history," beginning with the "discovery" of Canada by John Cabot in 1497, then passing through a brief, heroic but ultimately doomed French phase, and finally emerging after 1763 as an increasingly successful and ultimately independent offspring of its British model -a model quietly confirmed in the portrait of the reigning monarch hanging at the front of every classroom, and our singing "God Save the King" (or, after 1952, the Queen) to start off the school day.This particular avatar of "Canadian history" gave way in the 1960s in the face of the Quiet Revolution: almost overnight it was all about two "founding nations," about bilingualism and biculturalism.Soon, however, a third version of "Canadian history" elbowed its way to the fore.It turned
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.011 |
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".