MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278064530 · doi:10.3138/jcs.49.1.205

“I’se in Town, Honey”: Reading Aunt Jemima Advertising in Canadian Print Media, 1919 to 1962

2015· article· en· W2278064530 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Cheryl Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuntWhite (mutation)Middle classPrint cultureMedia studiesPrint mediaTrademarkHistorySociologyNewspaperLiteratureGender studiesArt historyArtLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 1919 and 1962, the Aunt Jemima advertising trademark made frequent appearances in Canadian print media. While scholars have documented how the image of the faithful, happy-to-please Black slave woman captivated the American cultural imagination, the advertising trademark has received much less scholarly attention in Canada. As Canadian culture modernized in the 1920s, withstood a Depression and the Second World War, and witnessed the birth of the suburbs, Aunt Jemima advertisements reflected the changing milieu. Using textual and visual analysis, this essay argues that English-language media, primarily the Toronto Daily Star and Chatelaine magazine, publications which had the highest circulations in early twentieth-century Canada, were significant outlets for White middle-class Canadians. The presence of Aunt Jemima, a prototypical “Mammy” plucked from the plantation South, thus stands as an example of how race, class, and gender were constructed in English-language media, and by extension, dominant Canadian society in the first half of the twentieth century.

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)0.003
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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0260.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207