MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229664121 · doi:10.3138/uhr.47.1-2.05

“Undesirables Entering the Town to Look for Good Times”: Banff Confronts Its Counterculture Youth Scene, 1965–1971

2018· article· en· W4229664121 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Ben Bradley

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban History Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsCountercultureResentmentGovernment (linguistics)Media studiesPolitical scienceHistorySociologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small urban centres remain largely overlooked in historical studies of the counterculture in Canada. This article examines the rise and fall of the scene in Banff, Alberta—a single-industry town with an economy based on accommodating travelling pleasure-seekers, that lacked an elected municipal government. Beginning in 1965, a fast-growing number of counterculture and transient youths trekked to Banff each summer. Some used its public spaces for behaviour Banffites deemed inappropriate and also bothersome to tourists, which pushed officials, business owners, and other permanent residents to debate the nature and limits of tolerance in their community. A few facilities and services welcomed counterculture youth, but most residents remained apprehensive about how Banff’s image might be affected during the high tourist season. After years of mounting frustration and resentment, tensions reached a crescendo in 1971, following which Banff’s status as a counterculture destination abruptly collapsed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0150.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban History ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207