Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the decades following Confederation, Canada was a nation struggling to define itself at a time of economic upheaval, ethnic division, and political and religious uncertainty; it was both a forbidding and fruitful time to be a writer, and particularly to be a woman writer, ostensibly barred by her sex from political debate and self-display. Yet when Lily Lewis wrote for The Week in 1888 that “The time has come for this Canada of ours to be revealed by other tongues, other pens, and in other languages than that of the railway magnate or emigration agent,” she obviously counted herself and fellow women among those who would reveal the new nation; and her confidence was not misplaced. Women played an increasingly public role in post-Confederation Canada, contributing with confidence and authority to an emerging print culture centered in the newspaper and magazine industries and the fledgling domestic book trade. Amidst heated debates about the health of the race, the decline of Christianity, women’s rights, class warfare, and the Indian problem, the voices of women were not only tolerated but increasingly sought after for their social awareness, moral influence, and personal touch. Working creatively in genres ranging from the newspaper sketch, campaign speech, and advice column to the personal memoir, patriotic poem, and social problem novel, Canadian women crafted compelling personae who spoke powerfully and persuasively to a large audience, both at home and internationally.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
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".