MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114772616 · doi:10.3138/cjc-2024-0102

Cancel Culture, the Paradox of Commemoration, and the Need for Public Interest Relations

2025· article· en· W7114772616 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaHarmIndigenousColonialismPublic interestRacism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Toronto Metropolitan University, formerly known as Ryerson University, faced a significant reputational crisis in 2021, when Egerton Ryerson, whose name it commemorates, was heavily criticized for causing significant and intergenerational harm to Indigenous communities in Canada. In response to mounting public pressure, the university went through a year-long renaming process that involved reviewing records and consultations with a wide range of stakeholders. On April 26, 2022, its new name, “Toronto Metropolitan University,” was announced. Analysis: This commentary views the case from the lenses of cancel culture and crisis communication. It elucidates (1) the problematic nature of characterizing the public outcry for renaming Ryerson University as a manifestation of cancel culture, and (2) the ineffectiveness of traditional image-repair tactics in addressing paradoxes of commemoration, where organizations struggle to navigate the constrained space created by polarizing narratives. Conclusions and implications: Overall, the commentary argues that debates about Egerton Ryerson's role in the establishment of the Residential School system highlight essential elements of racism and colonialism in contemporary Canadian society; thus, dismissing his critics as mobs motivated by cancel culture overlooks the distinctive role of universities in fostering, promoting, and engaging in dialogue and diverse viewpoints.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207