BLACKNESS AND BRITISH ‘FAIR PLAY’: BURGEONING BLACK SOCIAL ACTIVISM IN ONTARIO AND ITS GRASSROOTS RESPONSES TO THE CANADIAN COLOUR LINE, 1919-1939
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Blackness and British ‘Fair Play’: Burgeoning Black Social Activism in Ontario and its Grassroots Responses to the Canadian Colour Line, 1919-1939” centres community-building as an effective method to reject the notion of Blackness as racial alterity and second-class citizenship in Canada. This project highlights the understudied and informal everyday acts of resistance that Black Canadian women crafted to fight anti-Black racism during the interwar period. After identifying how white Canadians expressed the colour line during the 1920s and 1930s, I consider how Black people pragmatically responded in Ontario. In this study, I argue that Black women worked as community leaders to engender a shared intra-racial collective among Black Canadians of varying backgrounds. Their dynamic leadership changed over time, developing through church fundraising social activities, starting church youth clubs, to launching much-needed leisure, recreation, and learning activities premised on a Black international scope and a Pan-Africanist ideology. A close examination of oral history interviews, church records, activist organization records, and newspapers offers a thoughtful consideration of historical contingencies. These factors informed the everyday, local ways that Black people in Ontario challenged their racialized alterity and ostracization in Canadian society.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".