Bibliographic record
Abstract
In August 1934, delegates of the Socialist Party of Canada, the dominant of the two affiliates to the British Columbia Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (bc/ccf), returning from the National Convention of the ccf in Winnipeg, lamented that “the Convention was far from being revolutionary, and tended further to the right.” The only bright spot on the horizon, they felt, was the small national youth movement that understood the necessity of “forg[ing] an instrument” capable of “the revolutionary transformation of our economic and social system.”1 Throughout the 1930s, the bc ccf was considered nationally as the most left wing of the movement’s provincial sections, and the bc ccf itself considered itself to be responsible for providing a revolutionary and working-class anchor to a national movement that seemed, at times, to drift from its socialist moorings. And, for the most part, historians – most recently Benjamin Isitt – have acknowledged the bc ccf’s place on the left-wing of the Canadian movement in the 1930s and beyond.2 As Robert A.J. McDonald rightly argues, however, there was much in the day-to-day practice and language of the bc ccf that seemed to violate its own self-perception. Indeed, its actions appear not very different, for the most part, than other provincial ccf sections that engaged in socialist education and ran in elections. He argues that was most apparent in the ccf’s breakthrough provincial election in 1933, which he sees as a “populist moment” wherein the
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.055 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".