The Demise of Dominant Ethnicity in English Canada?: Orange Order Membership Decline in Ontario, 1918-1980 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers three facets of ethnicity - communities of putatively shared ancestry - that have received scant attention in the academic literature to date. Namely, dominantgroup ethnicity, Protestant ethnicity and ethnic decline. Protestant ethnicity concerns ethnic groups for which Protestantism serves as the key boundary marker. By dominant ethnicity, I refer to the ethnic community within a nation - whether state or sub-state that is politically hegemonic, economically and culturally advantaged, and demographically dominant. As both myself and others remark, all of these conditions do not always hold, so it is not necessarily an easy task to delineate a clear ‘majority’ group, but the term ‘dominant ethnicity’ still serves us as a useful shorthand for empirical work. (Doane 1997: 376; Kaufmann 2000) Finally, a dominant ethnic group may be said to have declined when (one or more of) its political power, economic and cultural hegemony, and demographic preponderance is reduced.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".