Bureaucratic rationalism, political partisanship and Acadian nationalism: the 1920 New Brunswick history textbook controversy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This doctoral dissertation is a microhistory of a textbook controversy in 1920 New Brunswick, Canada. During a time of post war sensitivity to nationalism and patriotism, public feeling was aroused as the result of a complaint about Myers' General History, a world history textbook with a newly written chapter about the Great War. In the chapter, the American author made no reference to Canada, and overemphasized British and especially American war efforts. A close examination of events over the course of the following six months investigates the public outcry, the bureaucratic response of the New Brunswick Board of Education and the political manoeuvring of the media. Their focus on the original issues of patriotism, citizenship, history education and the role of schooling eventually dissolved into longstanding conflicts over language and religion. Contextualized in the rich historical literature examining history and citizenship education and the history of education in Canada, this dissertation draws on a wide range of archival sources, most particularly the Board of Education correspondence and New Brunswick newspapers, to explore how questions about history education were interpreted through the lens of the bureaucratic rationality of the educational administrator, the political partisanship of the newspaper editor, and the Acadian nationalism of the Roman Catholic Bishop. The 1920 New Brunswick history textbook controversy contributes to our understanding of the political nature of public memory, and the complex intertwining of religion and language rights within schooling, history education and citizenship in Canada, and in New Brunswick.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".