Did Your Mother Go To Bimbo School?: Naming Schools, Power, and Politics in Canada’s Prairie West
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Naming converts space to place. Place names are often the manifestation of military and political power. The victors write history and embed their culture and power in the landscape by naming and renaming places. In Canada’s Prairie West, after 1870, Aboriginal place names were submerged beneath a tide of British imperial nomenclature bestowed by major corporations. Agricultural immigrants from Europe found it difficult to mark their presence in the landscape by naming settlements, but school names were generally assigned locally. By naming schools, otherwise powerless groups from Eastern Europe marked their presence in the rural landscape. Naming or renaming them reflected the strength of community power, the community’s weltanschaaung , and fluctuations in the influence of the Anglophone elite. L’acte de nommer convertit l’espace en un lieu. Le nom des lieux (toponyme) sont souvent la manifestation du pouvoir politique et militaire. Les vainqueurs écrivent l’histoire et intègrent leur culture et pouvoir dans le paysage en nommant et en renommant des lieux. Après 1870, dans la région des Prairies de l’Ouest du Canada, les toponymes autochtones ont été submergés sous une marée de nomenclature impériale Britannique conférée par les grandes entreprises commerciales. Les immigrants agricoles en provenance d’Europe ont trouvé difficile de marquer leur présence dans le paysage en nommant des villages. Toutefois, cela n’était pas le cas pour le nom des écoles qui était généralement attribué localement. L’acte de nommer leurs écoles a permis à des groupes d’Europe de l’Est de marquer leur présence dans le paysage rural. Ainsi, nommer ou renommer les écoles reflète le pouvoir de la communauté, l’weltanschauung de la communauté, et les fluctuations de l’influence de l’élite anglophone.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.056 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".