MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401756092 · doi:10.3138/cras-2023-020

“True Canadian”: Advertising Canadian Branded Products in the Early American Press, 1760–1810

2024· article· en· W4401756092 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jonathan Bayer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAmerican History and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvertisingHistoryPolitical scienceArtBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When products were marketed as “Canadian” in the early American press, it meant more than simply “Made in Canada.” The author argues that “Canadian” served as a brand in early American advertising to denote the robust and hardy qualities of the product. Like Canada and its inhabitants, both of which were portrayed as rugged and raw, products labelled “Canadian” were marketed as similarly sturdy and tough, even if those products had not actually originated in Canada. As far as early American advertisers were concerned, “Canadian” products were unique, and it was beneficial to advertise that fact.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.013
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicAmerican History and CultureFrench-language works237,207