MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384911734 · doi:10.3138/ijcs-2022-0007

Research Notes: Comparing Jewish Anarchist Mutual Aid Initiatives in Montreal and Toronto: The Role of Cooperation

2023· article· en· W4384911734 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Maria Tarasova Chomard

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Canadian Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnarchism and Radical Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudaismScholarshipPolitical radicalismPoliticsDiasporaSociologyHistoriographyMutual aidGender studiesPolitical scienceHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constituting an important element of the Canadian Jewish diaspora, although relatively overlooked by the historiography, the Jewish anarchist movement was instrumental in operating two mutual aid initiatives in eastern Canada in the first half of the twentieth century. Based in Montreal and Toronto, these initiatives and the communities overseeing them were largely inspired by the anarchist humanitarian work for the benefit of political prisoners. The latter was heralded by the universal anarchist Emma Goldman, a frequent visitor of Canada. Locally, however, both groups were rooted in a complex relational network, ranging from the predominantly socialist Jewish organization Workmen’s Circle (Arbeiter Ring) to Zionist milieux and smaller anarchist communities mainly of Russian and Italian origin. Drawing on archival findings from the Jewish collections of Montreal and Toronto, as well as testimonies and scholarship on Jewish radicalism in Canada, the article ambitions to measure the limits of this multi-scale cooperation and its consequences for the local anarchist presence. Through a comparative analysis of the Montreal and Toronto movements, the study attempts to explain the differences in their evolution, as well as to identify the possible, only partly overlapping reasons for their decline circa 1940.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.316 · 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.

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicAnarchism and Radical PoliticsFrench-language works237,207