MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1591674617 · doi:10.3138/jcs.43.3.169

Jewish Immigrant Encounters with Canada’s Native Peoples: Yiddish Writings on Tekahionwake

2009· article· en· W1591674617 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Rebecca Margolis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe HolocaustJudaismImmigrationHistoryJewish cultureNazismCultural assimilationPoliticsSociologyPopulationEthnologyGender studiesAnthropologyPolitical scienceLawDemographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the mass Jewish immigration of Eastern-European Jews to Canada in the first decades of the twentieth century, Yiddish publications offered a primary forum for a group of local writers to negotiate with their new identities as Canadian Jews. Within this wider process, Montreal writers H.M. Caiserman and B.G. Sack authored studies of Canadian literature in the early 1920s centred on Mohawk-English writer E. Pauline Johnson (Tekahionwake). What these essays show is that, despite the long-standing association of Canada's Jewish population with the country's dominant English culture, their status as "other" impelled leading members of the local Yiddish cultural milieu to seek out literary models among other historically marginalized groups. For Caiserman and Sack, Johnson's Native heritage offered a model for resistance to assimilation into Canada's dominant culture. In contrast, the advent of literature responding to the Nazi Holocaust by A.M. Klein and Eli Mandel, Native peoples became a symbol of loss and vanished landscapes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0560.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207