Protestants, the Liberal State, and the Practice of Politics: Revisiting R.J. Fleming and the 1890s Toronto Streetcar Controversy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through the lens of R. J. Fleming, Irish Methodist businessman, alderman, and four times mayor of Toronto in the 1890s, this paper re-examines the moral reform campaigns of middle-class Protestants described by Christopher Armstrong and H. V. Nelles in their now classic study, The Revenge of the Methodist Bicycle Company (1977). Instead of looking at the Sunday car issue from the perspective of the promoters and as evidence of secularization, it presents as a case study Fleming’s conflicted and controversial role as an evangelical politician confronted with a divisive moral and religious issue within the late nineteenth-century liberal state. Scholarly debates on the process of secularization in late nineteenth-century Canada have given little attention to the influence of the timing and nature of the country’s political arrangements and have thus neglected the contradictions and tensions devout politicians faced within the new state and social order. This paper argues the need to make an important but often overlooked distinction between political and social secularization. With close attention to detail, it examines Fleming as an “evangelical modernizer” who as a politician had to maintain the neutrality of the state and at the same time address the concerns of a religious constituency that feared a favourable vote on Sunday cars would lead to social secularization.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".