MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045451325 · doi:10.1177/0741713603257090

Literacy, Imagined Nations, and Imperialism: Frontier College and the Construction of British Canada, 1899-1933

2003· article· en· W2045451325 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pierre Walter

Bibliographic record

VenueAdult Education Quarterly · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontierLiteracySociologyCitizenshipNewspaperCapitalismNational identityGender studiesPower (physics)EliteImmigrationNation-buildingMedia studiesSocial sciencePolitical scienceLawPoliticsPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Print capitalism, languages-of-power, and the development of widespread literacy have been understood to be key historical forces in the construction of imagined national communities(Anderson). In Canada, the convergence of the newspaper publishing industry, English as a language-of-power, and literacy set the stage in the late 19th century for the emergence of an imagined Canadian nation, embedded both in Anglo-Protestant ideals of identity and British imperialist aspirations. Frontier College, in providing literacy and citizenship education to laboring immigrant men on the resource frontier, was the quintessential embodiment of the grand project of Anglo-Canadian nation building. Based on research in the Frontier College fonds of the Canadian National Archives, this article discusses the nature of the imagined community constructed in the literacy programs of Frontier College from 1899 to 1933, the means by which this image was promoted, and the particular conceptions of race, class, and gender that shaped it.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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 studies0.0370.020
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.001
GPT teacher head0.196
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.

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

Citations23
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdult Education QuarterlySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207