MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395077788 · doi:10.1177/00084298241242710

Myth, identity and ableism: Jericho March becomes Canadian Marathon of Hope in the Freedom Convoy

2024· article· en· W4395077788 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Melanie Coughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommunism, Protests, Social Movements
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbleismIdentity (music)MythologyLawSociologyOppressionPolitical scienceCriminologyHistoryAestheticsPoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim and means of the Freedom Convoy are instructive for understanding how ableism is promoted in Canadian society today. As an example of such promotion, the author considers the Jericho March that took place during the Freedom Convoy Trucker Protest in Ottawa. The organizer of the Jericho March described the Convoy’s aim as an end to all public protections against the spread of COVID-19, and the discourse used by the organizer prior to the Convoy aligns with the kind of ableism that characterizes this general aim. The organizer’s description of the Jericho March as the Convoy participants’ ‘Marathon of Hope’ also aligns with other appropriations of Terry Fox’s iconography within the Freedom Convoy. After situating the Jericho March within more aggressive tactics used by Convoy participants, the author synthesizes theoretical perspectives from Fiona Campbell and Keiji Nishitani to think about what kind of Canadian identity the march promoted. From these considerations, it seems that myth can be used by individual organizers in Canada today to actively promote and perhaps even shift the boundaries of structural forms of oppression.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0330.056
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.326 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicCommunism, Protests, Social MovementsFrench-language works237,207