The rise and fall of counter-hegemonic discourse on the working class : National Film Board of Canada films 1939-1946
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation represents the first major examination of the depiction of the working class in the National Film Board of Canada (NFB) films between 1939 and 1946. It is also the first to focus on studying class as it relates to Canadian cinema. In search of the formative roots of the Board's early discourse on labour and the working class, we first look at the historical development of early Canadian cinematic culture, Canadian working class political and cultural discourse and the NFB's own political and working dynamics. We then examine the films and point out connections between their discourse and the views forwarded at the time by supporters of the Popular Front. The survey of the films is contextualized within three phases marking the rise, the solidification and the eventual descendance of this discourse. By the late 1930s, the policies of the Communist Party based Popular Front had already assumed a prominent position within Canadian working class politics. This thesis argues that, during a short period after its establishment, the NFB produced a body of film which introduced a new cinematic discourse on the role and the politics of labour and the working class. It concludes that this discourse was closely affected by the developments that influenced the rise and the decline of the counter-hegemonic movement that was instigated by the Popular Front.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".