MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006108895 · doi:10.7202/031156ar

Contact Across a Diseased Boundary: Urban Space and Social Interaction During Winnipeg’s Influenza Epidemic, 1918-1919

2006· article· en· W2006108895 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Esyllt W. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial contactGender studiesSociologyContact zoneBoundary (topology)Social distanceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EthnologyMedicineDiseaseCommunicationInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919 in Winnipeg, several hundred predominantly Anglo-Canadian middle- and upper-class women volunteered to nurse and feed victims of the disease, particularly the poor of the city's north end. The contact between victim and volunteer, north and south, promoted a sense of social order, but was simultaneously unsettling for the women involved and for the broader community. The paper utilizes Mary Louise Pratt's notion of “contact zone” to suggest that the extraordinary qualities of social interaction during the epidemic, when lives normally lived apart intersected, were a source of social tension. This tension was partially resolved through limitations upon who fit the role of volunteer, principles of scientific management and professionalism, and the construction of an ideal feminine heroine. Individual women's volunteerism nevertheless reflected a more ambiguous experience.

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)0.004
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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0330.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207