MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064251874 · doi:10.7202/031154ar

Re-imaging the Moral Order of Urban Space: Religion and Photography in Winnipeg, 1900-1914

2006· article· en· W2064251874 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
James Opp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotographyContext (archaeology)NarrativeSpace (punctuation)Representation (politics)Style (visual arts)SociologyAestheticsOrder (exchange)Visual artsHistoryLawArtPolitical sciencePoliticsLiteraturePhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The arrival of the Reverend J.S. Woodsworth as the Superintendent of Winnipeg's All Peoples' Mission in 1907 coincided with a strategic shift in the visual representation of urban space in many Canadian Methodist publications. Traditional photographs of churches and ministers were soon accompanied by images of crowded tenements, impoverished conditions, and unsupervised children on the street. This paper examines the introduction of a social documentary style of photography and analyses how these images functioned within the context of the emerging social gospel and widespread middle-class anxieties over the “problem” of the city. This visual technology appealed to the new social reform emphasis on “surveying” conditions, but photography's inherent claim to represent an objective reality was overlaid with gendered moral boundaries, particularly in the space that surrounded the bodies of children. The re-imaging of urban space was part of a broader narrative that positioned the religious response to the city as both a moral and an environmental problem.

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)0.003
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicReligious Tourism and SpacesFrench-language works237,207