MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038731411 · doi:10.2307/3092218

The Politics of Population: State Formation, Statistics, and the Census of Canada, 1840-1875

2002· article· en· W2038731411 on OpenAlexaffabout
Colin Read, Bruce Curtis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American History · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusPoliticsState (computer science)PopulationHistoryAmerican Community SurveyGenealogyLibrary scienceDemographyMedia studiesSociologyPolitical scienceLawMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sociologist Bruce Curtis, whose works on state formation and education in old Ontario are well regarded, has produced an important examination of mid-nineteenth-century Canadian censuses. Non-Canadianists will be interested in Curtis's discussion of the literature surrounding census making and his conclusions that “censuses are made, not taken.” Censuses involve artificially constructed categories, such as household head or national origin, which oblige populations to cast themselves into such categories, the better to be governed. Curtis's arguments are bolstered by the insights of many theorists. In the background are those of Antonio Gramsci, as Curtis argues that hegemonic classes or segments of society can use the census to bolster “social imaginaries” simply by casting them into official terminology. On the other hand, he maintains that Michel Foucault's notions of population and its “gov-ernmentality” are at once too simple and too confused to illuminate such a modern state-making endeavor as the census.

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.013
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.205
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations44
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American HistorySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207