MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233301751 · doi:10.3138/chr.90.2.247

Gendering the Jubilee: Gender and Modernity in the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Celebrations, 1927

2009· article· en· W4233301751 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jane Nicholas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernityRelation (database)BourgeoisieGender studiesMasculinityNexus (standard)AestheticsSociologyHistoryPolitical scienceArtLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the nexus of gender, modernity, and visuality in the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation celebrations in 1927. Using the jubilee as a case study of the continuing conservative elements after the First World War, this essay argues that jubilee material promoted the idea that certain men had the ability to see the potential of the nation in relation to particular spaces, especially the North. Further, in privileging a specific group of modern men, jubilee organizers argued that this ‘sight’ echoed the foresight of the Fathers of Confederation. The appeal to men's allegedly innate vision also helped shore up a perceived embattled modern, white, bourgeois masculinity. This article also briefly discusses the impact of this gendering of vision in regard to women's perceived roles in nation-building, particularly in relation to Miss Canada and the underlying ambiguities concerning modernity.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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