Modernization and Reaction: Postwar Evolutions and the Critique of Higher Learning in English-Speaking Canada, 1945-1970
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher education underwent the final stage of modernization after 1945. The Second World War had accelerated modernizing trends that were decades in the making. In the postwar era, universities in English-speaking Canada continued to develop as utilitarian institutions: they were funded by the public purse, responsive to both governments and the public at large, and perceived as the focal points for the continued material and technological advancement of society. The utilitarian university, in short, reflected the values and orientations of the modern world. As such, there was little room in it for the humanities and liberal arts, once the foci of higher learning. Nor did the university maintain its function as social critic or transmitter of cultural values. Signaled by massive enrolments, million-dollar budgets, and the unprecedented significance of professional and applied science faculties, by the late 1960s, the fully modern multiversity had arrived in Canada. A major purpose of this article is to chronicle the postwar evolution of the university in English-speaking Canada. Even more important is the analysis of the reaction to these modernizing trends. Harold Innis, Donald Creighton, George Grant, Vincent Massey, Hilda Neatby and Northrop Frye were among the most significant of the postwar critics of modern higher education. While most Canadians were vaguely supportive of or indifferent to modernization, these critics deplored modern tendencies as being destructive of what they perceived to be an age-old university tradition and as undermining the basic cultural values of Western civilization. Above all, their self-imposed mandate was to call attention to the abuses and help reverse the effects of modernization. An understanding of the critics' views is thus important because it enables a fuller appreciation of the issues that underpinned academic modernization. It also helps one grasp the critics' own Idealized conception of the academy, which reveals much not only about the substance of the modernity debate, but also the biases and cultural values of the critics as the latter relate to higher education and the greater question of modernization.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".