“Talk About Strenuous Hockey”: Violence, Manhood, and the 1907 Ottawa Silver Seven-Montreal Wanderer Rivalry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study of violence and masculinity in Canadian hockey examines newspaper reports of matches involving the Ottawa Silver Seven and the Montreal Wanderers during the 1907 season. It analyzes media narratives of rough and aggressive hockey in relation to gender and class identities in late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Canada. Newspapers created hockey narratives that combined elements of “brutal butchery” and “strenuous spectacle.” These narratives spoke to different ways of experiencing and enjoying hockey, to tensions within public perceptions of the sport, and to a wider ambivalence about violence in the game. Depictions of “brutal butchery” combined outrage and fascination; accounts of “strenuous spectacle” portrayed violence as part of an absorbing, aggressive, masculine display. Ideals of respectable, middle-class masculinity and rough, working-class masculinity coexisted within accounts of fast, skilled, rugged, hard-hitting hockey. The danger, physicality, and competitiveness of “strenuous hockey” also cultivated and reinforced standards of passionate manhood and primitive masculinity during this time period. By evaluating key issues surrounding violence, gender, and class in early hockey, this article addresses important gaps in the study of Canadian sport history and the analysis of hockey and Canadian popular culture. In particular, it begins to answer the need for careful, focussed case studies that examine hockey violence in a historical context.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".