"Like Produces Like": Popular Conceptions of Heredity in Canada, 1860-1900
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines popular conceptions of heredity in Canada between 1860-1900. I focus on three bodies of literature in which ideas about heredity were explored, discussed, and negotiated: farmersâ and breedersâ periodicals, written by and for farmers and animal breeders; medical advice manuals aimed at wives and mothers; and the publications of the prominent reform organization, the Womanâ s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). Specifically, I ask: how did these three groups understand the nature of heredity, how did this affect the ways they interacted with the world, and where did these ideas about heredity come from? In each case, I examine the particular notions of heredity they embraced, their sources, and how such notions were forged and operationalized to make sense of and order both the natural and the social worlds. I show how popular notions of heredity interacted with the interests and aspirations of the people who engaged with them. By examining the contours and sources of popular ideas about heredity, my research also helps untangle and make clear aspects of the complex circulation of scientific knowledge in late 19th century Canadian society. This dissertation demonstrate the role of these three distinct bodies of literature in the circulation of knowledge about heredity, and in the active discussion and negotiation about its broader social meanings. These media, which were themselves interconnected and mutually influential, exposed their readers to a range of sources and ways of knowing about heredity. They encouraged Canadians to think about the nature of heredity and its relevance to the health of their bodies and minds, their families, and the body politic.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".