Provincial Solidarities: The Early Years of the New Brunswick Federation of Labour, 1913–1929
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study draws attention to the importance of the early provincial federations of labour as a distinct form of labour organization in early 20th-century Canada. One of the first of these was the New Brunswick Federation of Labour, which attempted to strengthen local bonds of solidarity and represent workers at the level of the provincial state. The Federation originated with and was dominated by male workers in the skilled trades in the largest cities and by 1921 attracted almost 100 delegates from nine population centres, including a small number of women and Acadians. Its agenda included campaigns for the enactment of workers' compensation, the protection of women workers and the election of labour candidates, but a more thoroughgoing Reconstruction Programme (1919) was less successful, especially in the context of regional economic crisis in the 1920s. The study confirms the existence of a progressive movement within provincial society while identifying the limited scope of its ambitions and achievements. This study uses social history methods to explore an institutional narrative and to analyze a distinct chapter in the history of organized labour at the provincial level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".