MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232898547 · doi:10.3138/jcs.39.1.49

Holiday at the Banff School of Fine Arts: The Cinematic Production of Culture, Nature, and Nation in the Canadian Rockies, 1945-1952

2004· article· en· W4232898547 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
PearlAnn Reichwein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismNational parkCitizenshipThe artsNational identitySociologyAotearoaWildernessNationalismRecreationMedia studiesPolitical scienceGender studiesPoliticsGeographyLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Film Board’s 1946 production Holiday at School was the culmination of a decade’s work in university extension education by Donald Roy Cameron, the director of the Banff School of Fine Arts. Established by the University of Alberta in 1933 and shaped by Cameron’s vision from 1936 to 1966, the Banff School promoted Canadian nation-building through the arts and contributed to the construction of Banff as a prime tourism destination and wilderness recreation park. The strategy was not unlike the way Canadian cultural policy in the mid-twentieth century approached national development through tourism in the national parks and through film-making by the National Film Board. All three institutions—the National Film Board, the Banff School of Fine Arts, and Banff National Park—constructed Banff as a symbolic national landscape for leisure and tourism consumption. The film Holiday at School was thus produced at the intersection of these institutions participating in the construction of citizenship in Canada after the Second World War: holidays at the Banff School became a site for the expression of postwar ideals of liberal democratic citizenship that encompassed public education, leisure consumerism, and Canadian nationalism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207