Where have all the Canadians gone? : frame resonance, transformation and institutionalization of the Canadianization movement, 1968-1985
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social movements are an understudied aspect of Canadian society. This thesis is an attempt to address this general lacuna by examining the social movement efforts of Canadian cultural nationalists during the 1960s and 1970s, as they struggled to build a strong, vibrant Canadian cultural community. Four social movement based questions guide the analysis. First, why did the Canadianization movement begin when it did? Second, how did the movement transform itself for long-term survival? Third, what kinds of mobilizing structures did the movement make use of, and what influence did these structures have on the movement's activities? And finally, how did the movement maintain itself in times when the political and media climate was unreceptive? This thesis addresses these questions with the combined use of data collected from archival sources as well as twenty-two interviews. The case of Canadianization permits us to empirically document the actions that organizational intellectuals take in pushing for social and cultural change, an aspect of the social movements literature that, until now, has been largely only theorized about.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".