MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7047618017

Good Canadians in every sense, the Citizenship Council of Manitoba, 1948-1975

2000· other· en· W7047618017 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2000
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSuperconducting and THz Device Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsCitizenshipPoliticsMulticulturalismInterpretation (philosophy)ImmigrationIdentity (music)Ethnic groupGovernment (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis seeks to understand what citizenship has meant within the everyday lives of Canadians by tracing the growth and evolution of the Citizenship Council of Manitoba between 1948 and 1975. By looking at the Council within this period it is possible to examine how two pieces of government policy--the Citizenship Act of 1947 and the Multiculturalism policy of 1971--were given meaning within a local community organization. The issues of gender, religion and class were central to the Citizenship Council's identity as a group, influencing how it understood citizenship and how it related to immigrants. By assuming greater leadership of the organization within this period, women were instrumental in bringing about more direct immigrant participation. As the group became less overtly Christian during this period its rhetoric became less religious and more political in nature. The Citizenship Council's class identity evolved as well, and by the 1970s its membership and leadership reflected greater ethnic and social diversity, thereby portraying a broader interpretation of what it meant to belong as a "good" Canadian citizen. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0250.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.164 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicSuperconducting and THz Device TechnologyFrench-language works237,207