“At Breakfast We Heard Whistles Blowing”: Nationalist Sentiment in St. Catharines 1899-1902
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholarship on Canadian nationalism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries provides a clear but broad examination of predominant types of nationalist thought in Canada at the outbreak of the Boer War (1899-1902). Nationalism was often influenced by regional considerations, religion, ethnic background, education, and gender. However, existing scholarship neglects the ways that nationalist thought manifested in and shaped everyday life of citizens and communities. This thesis explores the intensity and nature of nationalist sentiment in St. Catharines during a brief window in time—1899 to 1902—as seen through the lens of the local media and contemporary sources such as diaries, veterans’ association records, publications, and civic reports. This material reveals that nationalist sentiment, as articulated on a micro level, was nuanced in its promotion of the city as a small but significant node in a broader imperial nation. In St. Catharines, imperial nationalism manifested in ways that privileged an Anglo, white, Protestant, middle- to upper-class audience who enthusiastically participated in the perpetuation of an imperial view of Canada’s role in the world.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".