When Ghosts Hovered: Community and Crisis in a Company Town, Britannia Beach, British Columbia, 1957-1965
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article compares two shutdowns in the copper-mining town of Britannia Beach, British Columbia, It explores the extent to which community was a "sufficiently empowering myth" to unite residents against their employers’ respective closure attempts. During a 1958 shutdown triggered by plummeting copper prices, divisive notions of community, coupled with loyalty to long-time employer Britannia Mining and Smelting Company, produced despair rather than resistance among residents. Most left Britannia to find other work, and few returned when the mine reopened ten months later. Conversely, when the town’s future was again at risk during a labour dispute in 1964, workers reacted with stiff resistance. When the new owner, the Anaconda Company, threatened to close the mine, striking employees mounted a united campaign and called for support from across Canada to keep the mine open. When the dispute was settled seven months later, the union claimed victory over an American corporate giant. This commuter workforce with loose social ties had successfully used notions of local and national community to foster militancy against their employer. The case of Britannia demonstrates how community can both restrain and rouse workers and town residents, shaping their diverse reactions to deindustrialization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".