21st Century Holocaust Memorials in Ottawa and London as National Sacred Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis critically and uniquely compares two recent national Holocaust memorial projects: the Canadian National Holocaust Monument, Ottawa, and the proposed United Kingdom Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, London. Using interviews with key figures involved in each project, the designs and the discourses surrounding them, I consider how these memorials fit within their broader national contexts, including with regard to Holocaust commemoration. In particular, this thesis examines how the two memorials can be understood as sacred spaces. I argue that they can be classified as sacred spaces, both in terms of how they are intended to function and how they are received, engaged with and experienced by visitors over time. They clearly manifest recurring characteristics of such sites and those involved in their creation perceive them as sacred spaces. This thesis also considers how the Canadian National Holocaust Monument and proposed United Kingdom Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre can be viewed as part of a lineage of existing Holocaust memorials and memorial museums around the world, including with regard to sacrality. Despite this, I demonstrate that these two new memorials also mark something different to what has gone before, as 21st century state-led projects, with limited Jewish community involvement, in countries where the events of the Holocaust did not take place.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".