Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian women have worked, individually and collectively, at home and abroad, as creators of historical memory. This engaging collection of essays seeks to create an awareness of the contributions made by women to history and the historical profession from 1870 to 1970 in English Canada. Creating Historical Memory explores the wide range of careers that women have forged for themselves as writers and preservers of history within, outside, and on the margins of the academy. The authors suggest some of the institutional and intellectual locations from which English Canadian women have worked as historians and attempt to problematize in different ways and to varying degrees, the relationship between women and historical practice. The authors raise many interesting questions about how gender influences historical consciousness and whether looking at the past through women’s eyes alters the view. Women engaged in history in a wide variety of ways -- as authors of fiction, popular history, juvenilia, and drama -- as well as more academic research and publishing. They worked as individuals, as both professional writers and academics, and within formal and informal communities of women such as religious groups or local clubs. The essays also talk about the barriers that existed for women who wanted to be recognized as historians and teachers of history and point out how gender differences have coloured perceptions of what constitutes history and who should write that history. This anthology shows how, instead of being intimidated or defeated by their marginalization, women developed new and interesting ideas about what constituted history. The final essay in the volume assesses the impact the burgeoning of feminist history in the 1970s had on the academy and examines the connection between feminist activism and women’s history. This original and lively book highlights the pioneering efforts of women in developing alternate paths to historical expression. It makes an important contribution both to Canadian historical studies and to women’s and gender history in the West and will appeal to scholars interested in Canadian history, women’s studies, literature, and historiography.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.004 |
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".