MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968673829 · doi:10.7202/1025790ar

Making (Anti)Modern Childhood: Producing and Consuming Toys in Late Victorian Canada

2014· article· en· W1968673829 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Braden Hutchinson

Bibliographic record

VenueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionCraftModernityCompetition (biology)Economic shortageTasteWork (physics)Factory (object-oriented programming)Political scienceBusinessSociologyLawEngineeringVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior to the First World War much of Canada’s toy supply came from Germany. When the guns of August sounded in 1914, Canadian consumers found themselves in the midst of a shortage of mass produced toys, dubbed the ‘toy famine’ in the popular press. Two incompatible solutions ultimately arose to deal with this problem of consumer demand and industrial supply. Middle class women, drawing on their work over the preceding decades distributing and producing toys for philanthropic means and the discourse of the conditioned child, turned to craft production using the labour of returned soldiers to refurbish second hand playthings and produce new ones as artisans. Canadian manufacturers, with the support of the state, pursued a policy designed to industrialize toy production in Canada for competition at home and abroad. In some cases, one group openly resisted the efforts of the other. Ultimately, these two visions made possible a debate about modernity and the role of industrial technology in Canadian family life and consumer culture.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0260.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and MedicineSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207