From the Secretary’s Desk to Main Street: Change and Transition in the British Columbia Credit Union Movement, 1936‑1960
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From its founding in 1936 to roughly 1960, the credit union movement in British Columbia focused on the financial emancipation of lower-income British Columbians. As such it was one of a number of similarly inspired institutions, which included adult education centres, cooperatives, trade unions and the CCF. In spite of the existence of Canadian prototypes — the caisse populaire movement in Quebec and, what inspired the BC credit unions in the first place, the Antigonish movement in Nova Scotia — the BC experience generally followed the American model. The first experiments in cooperatives date to the 1860s, but early efforts were sporadic and uncoordinated. Started initially in 1932 by Vancouver's Army of the Good and encouraged by, among several organizations, the CCF, credit unions were given legal standing late in 1939. Once authorized, these institutions expanded rapidly; 139 were established before the end of the war. They answered a felt need to promote savings and encourage the responsible handling of cheaper levels of credit. By 1960, however, the British Columbian credit union movement was reaching the end of its emancipatory stage and had drifted far from its roots. Initially founded on the economic populism of the Antigonish movement, it absorbed many of the organizational techniques and some of the conservatism which characterized the American movement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".