MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249538283 · doi:10.3138/chr.91.1.61

‘A Species of Treason?’: Deportation and Nation-Building in the Case of Tomo Čačić, 1931–1934

2010· article· en· W4249538283 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Dennis Molinaro

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeportationPoliticsImmigrationPolitical scienceLawSociologyPolitical economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Deportation was used to remove political radicals from Canada during the early 1930s, as well as immigrants receiving poverty or unemployment relief. Studies of deportation in North America are limited and have rarely focused on ideas of ‘the nation’ as a primary focus of debates over deportation; and they have seldom dwelt upon the local efforts of those resisting deportation. Arguably the most influential works in this area are Barbara Roberts's Whence They Came: Deportation in Canada 1900–1935 and Anthony Rasporich's ‘Tomo Čačić: Rebel without a Country.’ This paper builds on the work of both authors by explaining not only the mechanisms, but also the ideological moorings, of Depression-era deportation policies, through the revealing case study of Tomo Čačić, a transnational radical who thought globally and acted locally. The power to deport provided the state with a powerful nation-shaping tool. Deportation of political radicals served a dual purpose: it both isolated and removed those identified as political enemies of the political order and, conversely, demonstrated by implication the qualities of those who were qualified to figure as citizens within the emerging Canadian nation.

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)0.002
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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0320.020
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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