MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1971803913 · doi:10.1353/can.2013.0003

Hearts and Minds: Canadian Romance at the Dawn of the Modern Era, 1900–1930 by Dan Azoulay (review)

2013· article· en· W1971803913 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Dale Barbour

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Historical Review · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Identity and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRomanceCourtshipHistoryEliteSociologyArt historyLiteratureLawArtPolitical sciencePolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Hearts and Minds: Canadian Romance at the Dawn of the Modern Era, 1900–1930 by Dan Azoulay Dale Barbour Hearts and Minds: Canadian Romance at the Dawn of the Modern Era, 1900–1930. Dan Azoulay. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2011. Pp. 300. $34.95 Canadians had plenty to say about their quest for love and marriage at the beginning of the twentieth century. The challenge is finding their words. Dan Azoulay offers us a window into love in his new book, Hearts and Minds: Canadian Romance at the Dawn of the Modern Era, 1900–1930. Tapping over twenty thousand letters to correspondence columns in Montreal’s Family Herald and Weekly Star and Winnipeg’s Western Home Monthly, a range of archival sources, and pictures, Azoulay details the criteria men and women used to select their mates, how they struggled with the dos and don’ts of romance and courtship, and how the First World War shook up their world. He rounds his discussion off by looking at how concepts of romance, already in flux at the beginning of the war thanks to urbanization and industrialization, turned from courtship and marriage to dating and companionship in the 1920s. Azoulay correctly critiques previous histories of romance for being focused on the views and perspectives of the cultural elite and giving short shrift to the experiences of the working class (8). Fortunately the correspondence column letters allow men and women from a wide range of work and class backgrounds to speak and argue in their own words about what romance meant to them. The result doesn’t upend previous discussions on romance – the whims of the elite are echoed in these letters and the patterns remain the same – but it does complicate them. Yes, “proper” behaviour still mattered and women and men were expected to – and Azoulay argues, for the [End Page 149] most part, did – follow a complex set of etiquette rules for romance. But practical matters were also considered; men sought potential wives who could cook and clean but also might be “cultured companions” (39). Appearance, while not ignored, was far down the list of attributes that men sought in women, a reminder that notions of beauty are culturally constructed (40). Women wanted men who were morally upright, fit, race-minded, and socially conscious, but they also demanded that their mates be kind and considerate, and if not handsome then at least neat and clean (89). Gender was also being policed as men and women searched for love prior to the First World War. Suffragettes were eyed with suspicion by male suitors and even some women, as were working women, suggesting how women faced pressure across different class bases as they extended their political and economic reach in the twentieth century (49). The historical record and even a casual glance at popular culture after the war tell us that the rules of courtship were changing. But Azoulay adds to that portrait by drawing from sources that make clear that the old laundry list of requirements for future mates had been simplified. Appropriately, Azoulay adds a visual component to his book by using archival photographs from across Canada. While some do little to move the narrative along, others provide a sense of how men and women carried themselves when together in the early twentieth century. The sexes literally drew closer to one another as the years passed (107, 232). This book is accessible to a general readership. The prose is easy to follow. The theoretical discussions are clear and succinctly explained and, from the perspective of non-academic readers, blissfully short. Academic readers may find the theoretical brevity frustrating and may yearn for more discussion on the changing concepts of masculinity and femininity and fewer poems from letter writers. They can find some solace in the footnotes, where Azoulay leads a more nuanced discussion of some historians, like Peter Ward, who have grappled with questions of romance and agrees with them or pokes holes in their arguments in equal measure. Similarly, the percentage of letters that comes from each source is spelled out in detail, thus providing a clear sense that region mattered when pouring out one’s hopes...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,170
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,221
Écart entre enseignants0,207 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Historical ReviewMême sujetCanadian Identity and HistoryTravaux en français237 207