Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, Richard Menkis analyzes the production and reception of the earliest scholarly monograph in Canadian Jewish history.By examining Chiel's intellectual formation, Menkis suggests that in his early communal work Chiel consciously chose a positive attitude which sought to combat despair, and that he brought that sensibility to his historical writing.Menkis also examines the context of the production of the narrative, namely the re-conception of Manitoba as a polyethnic society and the interest in ethnic histories at the Manitoba Historical Society.One of the major emphases in the Society was to show the "contributions" of the ethnic groups, which reinforced Chiel's inclination to ignore unhappy subjects, such as antisemitism.Although Chiel studied a number of factors in the development of the Jewish community, he also reproduced some of the "blind-spots" of other histories, especially the role of left-wing politics.Not surprisingly, he was harshly criticized by those who had been excised from the history.Chiel's work is thus also a product of a postwar climate in which the government began to encourage the engagement of ethnic groups with the society at large, but on certain conditions. Richard Menkis, La négociation de l'ethnicité, du régionalisme et de l'historiographie: Arthur A. Chiel et les Juifs du Manitoba: Une histoire socialeDans cet article, Richard Menkis analyse la production et la réception de la monographie savante la plus ancienne de l'histoire des Juifs canadiens.En examinant la formation intellectuelle de Chiel, Menkis suggère que dans ses premiers
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.607 | 0.457 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".