MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248351679 · doi:10.3138/chr.90.4.711

Manly Contests: Rodeo Masculinities at the Calgary Stampede

2009· article· en· W4248351679 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mary-Ellen Kelm

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasculinityScholarshipGender studiesNormativePoliticsSociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The Calgary Stampede is one of Canada's most popular annual festivals. Its long history and its mission to preserve Western values might suggest that its principle character, the cowboy, would be relatively uncomplicated. Yet recent scholarship on popular culture and public celebrations, as well as that on gender and masculinity, encourages a re-examination of the cowboy at the Calgary Stampede. This article examines how the Calgary Stampede constituted cowboy masculinities during the first three decades of the twentieth century. Focusing on the era when the flamboyant Guy Weadick was the Stampede's manager (1912, 1923–32), it first explores how the idea that the West could recuperate masculinity was expressed through a definition of the cowboy that was, in Weadick's words, ‘open to all.’ As rodeo became a sport, a new normative cowboy emerged, as local men, both settler and Aboriginal, took centre stage, excluding women and performers. This paper argues that the Calgary Stampede helped foster the development of new rodeo masculinities for both settler and Aboriginal men, ones grounded in the respectability of sport, and in the economic, social, and political challenges of early-twentieth-century Western Canada.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207