MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7002109608

Mary Ann Shadd Cary and Kit Coleman: The Shifting Public Memory of Canadian Female Journalism

2022· article· en· W7002109608 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperJournalismIrishImmigrationClass (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Susa Young Gates Award Essay Honorable Mention On June 30, 1855, Mary Ann Shadd Cary, a free black woman from a prominent black family and editor of The Provincial Freeman (a black abolitionist newspaper printed in Chatham, Ontario, Canada) wrote the following to identify her own achievements in journalism: “To colored women, we have a word—we have broken the Editorial ice, whether willingly or not, for your class in America, so go to Editing as many of you as are willing and able.” Shadd Cary did indeed break the “Editorial ice” as the first black female newspaper editor in both Canada and the United States. Despite her significant contributions to the history of the Canadian press, it would be another woman—almost 50 years later—who would be heralded as Canada’s first female editor. This distinction would be claimed by Kathleen (Kit) Coleman, an Irish immigrant who came to Toronto, Canada at the end of the nineteenth century. Writing for The Mail and Empire’s “Women’s Kingdom” column from 1889 to 1898, Coleman was recognized as one of the most popular female journalists of her time. Mary Ann Shadd Cary would claim her rightful place in Canadian public memory alongside Kit Coleman—but not until 1970.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0600.021
Scholarly communication0.0160.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University)Same topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207