MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231155539 · doi:10.3138/chr.90.1.29

Contested Terrains: Ethnic and Gendered Spaces in the Harbour Grace Affray

2009· article· en· W4231155539 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Willeen Keough

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupIrishGender studiesNegotiationNarrativeSociologyAnthropologySocial scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the negotiation of ethnicity between English Protestants and Irish Catholics in nineteenth-century Conception Bay, Newfoundland. Focusing on a particular moment of ethno-religious tension, a ritual staking of claim in the 1880s, it demonstrates that ethnicity was re-imagined through processes that drew selectively from Old World narratives, yet was very much shaped by local circumstances. The essay argues that ethnicity was not always driven by elites, but that popular classes also invoked ethnic difference for their own self-interests – in this case, as they jostled for position during economic decline. It also examines the gendered nature of participation in the affray, particularly the contrast between the institutional, predominantly male involvement of popular-class English Protestants and the communal, gender-inclusive response of popular-class Irish Catholics – a difference that reflected dissimilar positioning of women in family economies and divergent ethnic understandings of respectable womanhood.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.027
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207