MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131588708 · doi:10.7202/1009194ar

“Like a fragment of the old world”: The Historical Regression of Quebec City in Travel Narratives and Tourist Guidebooks, 1776–1913

2012· article· en· W2131588708 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
J.I. Little

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban History Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLandscape and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismBattleNarrativeEmpireHistoryPopulationMetaphorGeographyGenealogyAncient historyArchaeologyLiteratureSociologyArtDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although it was largely ignored in the late eighteenth century, Quebec City figured prominently on the North American circuit of British travel writers in the earlier years of the nineteenth century, when the obligatory description of the view from and of Cape Diamond served as a metaphor for imperial expansion. From this perspective, Quebec was not only the site where Wolfe had won his great battle against the French in 1759, it was also a military stronghold and gateway to an empire that stretched to the Pacific Ocean. The story told by American travel narratives and tourist guidebooks was rather different. They tended to see Quebec as unprogressive and of interest primarily because of its antiquity—an image that local tourism promoters turned to the city’s advantage as its population growth stalled in the later nineteenth century. With the arrival of the railways and the growing reliance on tourism as an industry, Quebec City’s image reverted to an early stage of the historical progress narrative, becoming frozen in a mythical past as a picturesque fragment of medieval Europe.

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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0100.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban History ReviewSame topicLandscape and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207