Uncanny Kinship: Canadian Ambivalence to Armenian Persecution in the 1890s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1890s, Canadians reacted with horror to the state-sanctioned massacre of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. The Hamidian massacres were widely reported as major news, and they were also commented upon in literary and artistic responses of various forms, including essays, poems, and cartoons. Yet even in the ferocity of its condemnation of the massacres, the Canadian public was ambivalent about how — or whether — to help the Armenians. On the one hand, the predominantly Christian settler population felt the stirrings of religious kinship and was moved by this religious identification to offer humanitarian aid to their fellow Christians. On the other hand, they did not want the persecuted Armenians to seek refuge in Canada: they saw Armenians as too different both racially and religiously from their preferred Northern or Western European immigrants. This article explores these opposing factors in Canadian public opinion as demonstrated in literary periodicals of the time, in conjunction with immigration and refugee policy. Even in a time at which the Canadian government was actively recruiting immigrants to colonize Canada’s West, both immigration policy and public opinion became more restrictive and insular.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.082 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".