Bibliographic record
Abstract
The document that follows, “Revolution in Winnipeg,” contains the observations of a young Canadian economist on the underlying conditions contributing to the Winnipeg General Strike in 1919. In interpreting this article, there are three preliminary points worthy of note. The first is its author. W.A. Mackintosh, 24 years old at the time, was to become the most important Canadian economist of his generation. Acknowledged as the “co-discoverer” (with Harold Innis) of the staple thesis, his academic writings on the geographical background to Canadian economic development and on the prairie wheat economy were central to the export-based model of economic growth. His Economic Background on Dominion-Provincial Relations, written for the Rowell-Sirois Royal Commission in 1939, remains the best single statement of the staples interpretation of Canadian economic history. Mackintosh was also the principal figure in creating the distinctive school of applied economics at Queen’s University, with its emphasis on public policy. Following in the liberal tradition of Adam Shortt and O.D. Skelton,1 one aspect of this work was to develop a framework for managing capital-labour conflict. He was a strong advocate of Canada’s Industrial Disputes Investigation Act and credited Shortt’s astute administration with what early success it achieved in ameliorating industrial disputes.2 Like Skelton, he was also a strong proponent of the right to collective bargaining but stopped short of endorsing public sector unionism or any actions that threatened the “constitutional authority” of government. Reflecting this concern, Mackintosh was responsible for the first Industrial Relations program in a Canadian university, created at Queen’s in the 1930s.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".