Bibliographic record
Abstract
When, thirtyfive years ago, I ordered my first files from the International In stitute of Metropolitan Toronto records at the Ontario Archives, I did not fully realize that it offered an entry into the neglected history of women's multicul turalism.Over the years, I returned to the collection for various projects.Then, I decided to take the plunge and conduct a project of historical recovery, one that led me to write both a Toronto and Canadianbased and a crossborder North American study of women's pluralism that also addresses the longer roots of pluralism in Canada and the United States.I did not have the fore sight to plan to write this book in time for the fiftieth anniversary of the official adoption of multiculturalism in Canada, but the desire to offer a left feminist historian's intervention into the heavily male and elitedominated historical scholarship helped me to finish it.I am pleased to acknowledge the debts that I have incurred along the way.The archivists at the Archives of Ontario were both helpful and patient with a scholar who, in an era before cameras became such a critical tool of the histori an's trade, ordered far too many photocopies of their materials.I thank as well the archivists at the City of Toronto Archives.A fellowship with the Immigra tion History Research Center Archives at the University of Minnesota facili tated my research into the US International Institute records.There, I benefited enormously from the professional assistance and expertise of archivist Daniel Necas and from the unflagging support of then director Donna Gabaccia.I offer a special thanks to Michael Moir (University Archivist) and especially Julia Holland, both of theYork University Clara Thomas Archives and Special Collections, and to the staff of the Archives of Ontario, for helping me to access photographs while navigating holiday and COVID19 lockdowns.Jesse Mun roe generously shared with me items from his impressive personal archive of Canadian National Exhibition materials.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.274 | 0.171 |
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".