Contradictions in Canadian co-operation: A diffusion of innovation approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper challenges functionalist notions of Canadian co-operation as a static, ahistorical, monolithic or unitary system, instead focusing on its inherent tensions. Drawing together literature on European and Canadian movement history, diffusion of innovations theory is used to first examine the model’s trans-Atlantic and cross-continental spread. European invention dates are compared to Canadian first-adoption dates, across a range of co-operative models. This situates the Canadian co-operative experience in a comparative, historical, and world-system context. It also illustrates the scope, timescale, and significance of the lag in mutualism’s trans-Atlantic diffusion. The analysis spotlights how its parent movements’ often conflicting traditions gave rise to internal contradictions, such as mutualism’s language-based, bi-national structure. Similarly, Canadian regionalism resulted in a three- wave expansion: across Eastern and Central Canada, in the foundation stage; across the Western frontier as the railway opened the West to settlement; and, most recently, across the North. Finally, the paper addresses settler co-operation’s colonial legacy and the challenge of reconciling with Indigenous communities. Canadian mutualism’s dependent, delayed, divided, and uneven development is thus placed in comparative and critical context
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".