Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their examination of the conflicts which followed the First World War, Canadian labour historians have tended to draw a sharp dichotomy between a “radical” west and a “conservative” east. Events in Toronto, however, which brought the city to the edge of a general sympathetic strike in late May 1919 cannot be explained in this way. The most notable feature of the Toronto labour movement was the degree of polarization within it. The potential clearly existed for a break with past forms of craft organization, towards a highly politicized industrial unionism. A powerful left wing, with wide support among newly organized, less-skilled workers, as well as workers with an immediate need for new forms of organization, was rapidly gaining dominance in the central bodies of the Toronto labour movement. Opposing them were the major beneficiaries of previous waves of organizing. These consisted, on the one hand, of union leaders who had helped shape the Toronto labour movement, and found key places for themselves within it. On the other hand, it also included a large number of workers who had established a stable bargaining relationship with employers, and a stake in the benefits their organizations had given them. This division meant that, from the outset, the possibilities for the establishment of a “One Big Union” did not exist, despite the enthusiasm that the western movement initially generated in Toronto. Conservative unions and leaders lost their dominance within the city's central union bodies but, by foiling the sympathetic general strike, were able to prevent the radicals from implementing an alternative strategy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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 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".