MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1883337684 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2010v35n4a2247

Reading Chatelaine: Dr. Marion Hilliard and 1950s Women’s Health Advice

2011· article· en· W1883337684 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kaitlynn Mendes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityGender studiesReading (process)IdeologyPatriarchyIdentity (music)SociologyPsychologyAestheticsPolitical scienceArtPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores key themes and discourses surrounding women’s health advice written by Dr. Marion Hilliard between 1954 and 1957. Her works, published in eight Chatelaine articles and a 1957 book, are of particular significance because they demonstrate some of the many paradoxes Canadian women faced: women were told to stay at home and be housewives, but that they could have an identity of their own; that women too were sexual beings, but that their sexuality was confined within heterosexual, monogamous limits. Hilliard’s articles are important because they not only demonstrate the extent to which patriarchy defined women’s roles, nature, and sexuality, but also how the mass media at times provides opportunities to challenge these dominant ideologies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207