Early Colonial Periodicals in Nineteenth-Century Canada: The Literary Garland in Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This piece examines the crucial role that periodical culture played in fashioning nineteenth-century Canadian identities as they emerged and developed over the course of the century. It focuses on the Montreal-based Literary Garland (1831–1851), edited by the Irish emigrant James Lovell, as one of the leading examples of periodicals that influenced notions of Anglophone ‘Canadian’ identity. It then moves on to argue that the inclusion of content such as Susannah Moodie’s initial sketches for Roughing it in the Bush in the Garland can be understood to be the beginnings of an interest in tales of local colour. The chapter situates the Literary Garland alongside its other predecessors and successors, such as the Scribbler (1821–27), and the British Colonist (1858–1910), examining the ways in which these periodicals shaped and defined notions of middle-class Canadian readerships. Thus, in tracing a long genealogy of Canadian periodicals over the course of the nineteenth century, while focussing on the Literary Garland, this piece demonstrates the importance of the periodical marketplace in driving its authors and audiences to engage with the question of what constituted ‘Canadian’ identities and ‘Canadian’ content.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".