MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531972166 · doi:10.1111/1467-6443.00212

Quebec and the Irish Catholic Relief Act of 1778: An Institutional Approach

2003· article· en· W1531972166 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Historical Sociology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEuropean Political History Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrishEmancipationNegotiationPoliticsPolitical scienceLawCharacter (mathematics)SociologyPolitical economyPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The following attempts to clarify the origins and character of the “movement” toward Catholic emancipation in the British empire by examining the negotiation of two early relief measures, the Quebec Act (1774) and the Irish Catholic Relief Act (1778), from an institutional perspective. It explores how institutions structuring Anglo‐Quebec and Anglo‐Irish political relations affected policy outcomes in each case, and what influence the Quebec case had on the Irish act four years later. While the Quebec Act offered a response to the Catholic question that was to assist supporters of the Irish bill, both were hard won against the inertia of institutional precedent. Neither act was accompanied by indications that greater freedoms were forthcoming. An institutional analysis thus challenges leading approaches that can represent the “movement” toward Catholic emancipation as more spontaneous and less contested than is sustained by actual events.

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.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

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 studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.201 · 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