The Distribution of Cultural IdentityA Canadian Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A banner like this, hung in the central passage of a training institute … cannot fail to impress itself on the character of some, giving their tastes a bent in those directions which you would desire to push them into. Albert Henry George, 4th Earl Grey (b.1851-d.1917). Letter, National Archives of Canada, Dated 13 March 1906. This illustrated presentation introduces a series of early twentieth-century embroidered and appliquéd banners that were the inspiration of Lord Grey, Governor General of Canada between 1904–11. The medium – needlework – was specifically chosen because of its historic connotations. By literally fabricating material memories these banners were meant to play an integral role in the construction of a Canadian cultural identity that was to privilege the British of an American model. Historians have recognized government supported campaigns that proselytized Imperialism, such as Empire Day and the IODE (Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire); however, the importance of textiles in the creation of Canadian cultural identity has been virtually ignored. Lord Grey’s correspondence suggests that no less than ten banners were shipped to Canada. Of these, eight represented Saint George, patron saint of England, Englishness and Empire, and one the personification of Canada. The message sent via the banners was a transparent one – to elicit loyalty in young men. Nonetheless, two of the banners proved to be stylistically problematic and these were held back whilst Grey reconsidered the use of embroidery and tradition in the construction of masculinity and national identity. His solution would in fact underpin Canada’s identity within the Empire – a dutiful daughter of Britannia. Through the examination of these banners we see how Imperialism and middle-class British aesthetics came together in an attempt to tighten the ties of Empire. We will also consider the Canadian response to what Lord Grey called his “little scheme.”
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".