The elephant in the (class)room: The debate over Americanization of Canadian universities and the question of national identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Focusing primarily on the period from 1968 to 1970, this essay analyses how a campaign led by two Carleton University professors, Robin Mathews and James Steele, to defeat “Americanization” in Canadian universities, morphed into a crucial nationwide debate. Ultimately, it will find that regardless of academic or social rank or citizenship, all participants in the debate relied on one common idea to support their arguments and criticize their opponents: that of the ‘colonial mentality’, or the notion that Canadians unquestionably accepted their country as subservient to the United States. Ultimately, this paradoxical usage of postcolonial themes represented an underlying ambivalence in regards to what was being debated in the first place. Thus this essay strives to address how a specific dispute within academia could, in Mathews and Steele’s words, evolve into a “struggle for the very existence of Canada as a self-respecting and independent community” [1a]. Moreover, it contributes to a deeper understanding of Canadian-American relations and the recent debate on Canadian universities’ hiring practices, which continues to be an issue nearly forty years later. In doing so it presents a fascinating case study of national identity within postcolonial frameworks.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.061 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".