MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1479708243

Rewriting the Modern: Reflections on Race, Nation, and the Death of a Department Store

2000· article· en· W1479708243 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Cynthia Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemiseNewspaperAnecdoteAdvertisingShot (pellet)HeadlineHistoryBankruptcyMedia studiesNews bureauLawPolitical scienceSociologyBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ON FEBRUARY 27, 1997, Eaton’s department store — “a Canadian shopping institution” for over 125 years — dropped a bombshell on the nation. Store president George Eaton announced that the retailer was seeking bankruptcy protection. The story was front-page news everywhere in the country and generated rivers of sentimental and nostalgic stories complete with crying customers recalling the good old days of Christmas windows, enormous catalogues, and full dinners that could be had for a buck in the Eaton’s College Street dining room. Shoppers, meanwhile, were voting with their feet. They may have been tearful about Eaton’s when journalists were around, but they were buying elsewhere, most likely in the American retailing successes like The Gap, Wal-Mart, and Banana Republic that have invaded Canada in the last several years. The final collapse of the Eaton empire in the fall of 1999 generated another round of newspaper commentary on the causes of the store’s demise, much sharing of heartwarming personal anecdote, and a deluge of letters to editors everywhere. One traumatized Toronto Star reader, upset about a feature on sex aids that appeared about the same time, wrote:

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0980.075
Scholarly communication0.0180.010
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0080.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207