Regionalism, W. L. Morton, and the Writing of Western Canadian History, 1870–1885
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In attempting to imagine and to define Canada--a persistent, almost obsessive, intellectual exercise among CANADIANS--analysts invariably come up against the of For regionalism has been a pervasive concept and factor in Canada's evolution. Regions existed long before Canada became a nation in 1867, and have continued to be an integral part of the country since Confederation. The of in Canada, therefore, recalls the penetrating comment by the distinguished literary critic Northrop Frye that identity so far as it affects the creative imagination, is not a 'Canadian' at all but a question. (1) The regional question is, however, a complex one. Despite its pervasiveness, no consensus exists as to how to define regionalism or what constitutes a region. To date, four dominant views of regionalism exist within the Canadian context. (2) In the first part of my paper, I will sketch out these four perspectives, using the Prairies as my chief example for illustrative purposes. Then in the second part of my paper, I will examine how the most distinguished Prairie historian, W.L. Morton, applied these four perspectives of the region in his historical analysis of the in Prairie history, the integration of the Prairie West into Confederation in the period between the acquisition of the North West by the Canadian government in 1869-70 and the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1885. Morton maintained throughout his historical writings on the Prairie West that the incorporation of the West into Confederation was a decisive moment in Prairie history--what he called an initial bias --that altered the direction of the region's history from one associated predominantly with fur trading to one based on agricultural settlement, that integrated the region into Canada, and that shaped every aspect of the subsequent history of the region after the period 1870 to 1885. In his attempt to understand this important period in Prairie history, Morton used a variety of perspectives including aspects of the four approaches to regionalism set out below. The first classification of regions in Canada is what geographers refer to as regionalism. Regions are classified according to a common feature, most often a common physical environment (although some analysts have looked to other distinguishing features besides topography, such as climate, ethnicity, or voting behavior as means to differentiate one formal region from another). This is the traditional and the most pervasive view of regions, one that is particularly popular with the Prairie region where there has been a long association and identification with the landscape. Even the term used for the region--Prairies--comes from the French word pre meaning meadow or grasslands, and therefore links the region to one of its geographical features, although geographers remind us that topographically it is not the most pervasive geographical feature of the region even if it has become its predominant imagined physical feature. Literary analysts have written numerous books about the magical influence of the land on the nature of the populace and on the creative imagination of the region. One thinks of W.O. Mitchell's Who Has Seen the Wind (1946), or Wallace Stegner's Wolf Willow (1962), or more recently Mark Abley's Forget: Rediscovering the Prairies (1986), Sharon Butala's The Perfection of the Morning: An Apprenticeship in Nature (1995), and Sid Marty's Leaning on the Wind: Under the Spell of the Great Chinook (1996). Historians of the Prairie West often begin their studies of the history of the region with reference to the region's geography, on the assumption, implied if not stated, that geography has played an important role in the history of the prairie region. Note, for example, Gerald Friesen's Introduction to The Canadian Prairies: A History (1987), and John Herd Thompson's first chapter Ever. …
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,018 | 0,015 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».