Dawn Wallin and Janice Wallace, eds., Transforming Conversations: Feminism and Education in Canada since 1970
Bibliographic record
Abstract
with" and "against the grain" in order to distinguish overt meanings from subversive currents that challenge colonial narratives in subtle but often unmistakeable ways.Importantly, Griffith does more than mine these newspapers for information.She also takes them as objects of study in their own right."Students were almost always the labour behind nineteenth-century boarding school newspapers," she writes, arguing that for this reason, "the material conditions under which these newspapers were produced matter just as much as what the text says" (24).Griffith thus pays close attention, not only to the content of the newspapers, but also to their paratextual elements, mastheads, photographs, page layout and architecture, article juxtapositions, as well as material that sheds direct light on individual student printers, typesetters, authors, and the activities that took place in the printing programs themselves.Griffith's book will be of great interest to Canadian cultural historians, Indigenous scholars, as well as historians of the book.Indeed, reading these newspapers shines a welcome and at times surprising light on areas sometimes left in the shadows by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission precisely because they give voice to missionaries, inspectors, Indian agents, principals, teachers, and bureaucrats -all of whom contributed to a past that framed colonialism as natural and innocent.As this book amply demonstrates, Indigenous students shared a world with these figures; they were not simply passive consumers of colonial ideology; their languages and cultures were not extinguished; and they did not merely exist in environments constructed by others.On the contrary: they actively shaped those environments and their newspapers as readers, as writers, and as printers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".