MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1496481684

Nova Scotia Lost and Found: The Acadian Boundary Negotiation and Imperial Envisioning, 1750-1755

2011· article· en· W1496481684 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffers Lennox

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit (Université de Montréal) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationSovereigntyNova scotiaHumanitiesMaritime boundaryPower (physics)Political scienceEthnologyBoundary (topology)GeographyHistoryArtLawPoliticsInternational law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Acadian boundary negotiations (1750-1755) marked a transition in the use of geography as an imperial tool. The discussions followed a two-step process: appointed commissioners representing Britain and France pored over old maps and geographic tracts but were unable to identify the most "ancient" Acadian boundary; direct diplomatic discussions then used cartography in an attempt to establish mutually agreeable limits in the northeast. These debates were shaped by Atlantic connections and competing Euro-Aboriginal claims to sovereignty. In lieu of material power on the ground, geography was used as a multi-faceted tool to address overlapping territories and the threat of war.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.159 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit (Université de Montréal)Same topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207