“Fraternally Yours”: The Role of Women in Montreal’s Prominent Scottish Fraternities, 1870s–2000s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fraternal societies were integral to both the social and fiscal security of newcomers and to established generations of Scottish-Canadians in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In Montreal, scholars have identified the pan-Canadian Sons of Scotland Benevolent Association and St. Andrew’s Society of Montreal as having been particularly active fraternal organizations. Much of the existing literature on Scottish associational culture in Canada understands it in terms of ethnicity. However, the underexplored concept of gender in associational culture can provide an equally valuable framework. Despite a seemingly shared ethnic identity, the lived experiences, beliefs, identities, socio-economic realities, religions, genders and approaches to inclusion were markedly different among Scottish-Canadian Montrealers. Through the use of an oral history project, the Sons of Scotland Benevolent Association and St. Andrew’s Society archives, and peer-reviewed literature, this article illuminates gender issues in androcentric Scottish-Canadian fraternal societies through careful examination of women’s lives within and on the periphery of Montreal’s fraternal orders.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".