MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399038864 · doi:10.3828/sj.2024.33.2.04

Imperial Canada as a training ground for empire

2024· article· en· W4399038864 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katrina-Eve Nasidlowski Manica

Bibliographic record

VenueSculpture Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArts and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsEmpireTraining (meteorology)ArtVisual artsArt historyArchaeologyHistoryGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article uses decolonial methods to examine four monuments in St Paul’s Cathedral which are associated with the settler-colonial state of Canada. It also demonstrates strategies for Indigenizing the pantheon to reassert viewership beyond imperial narratives which have been inscribed into British and Canadian histories. The four monuments are George Edward Wade’s bust John A. Macdonald (c. 1881–92), Sir Richard Westmacott’s monument to Major-General Isaac Brock (c. 1815), Carlo Panati’s monument to John Hawley Glover (c. 1886–87), and Francis Derwent Wood’s monument to John Eardley Wilmot Inglis (1896). Through these monuments, the article wrestles with, and troubles, the mythos of ‘Canadian’ identity as written into settler-colonial narratives and the ongoing pressures of colonialism throughout Canada. Importantly, the article articulates Indigenous presences – the Shawnee, Inuit and Mi’kmaq – and perseverances at the core of each monument, and further demonstrates that the presence of Black refugees in Nova Scotia and the Hausa people of West Africa are key to understanding and witnessing these monuments in St Paul’s Cathedral.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0270.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designNot applicable
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSculpture JournalSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207