"I Am Pleased with the Lambton Loot": Arthur George Doughty and the Making of the Durham Papers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article uses Antoinette Burton’s concept of the “archive story” to explore Arthur George Doughty’s making of the Durham Papers. It resurrects Doughty’s “archive story” from the archives of the very institution that he worked tirelessly to create to argue that archivists – the individuals who collect, arrange, and describe the materials that historians rely on to write their histories – also make history. Doughty’s interest in Lord Durham’s administration, and the twenty years he spent collecting the documents that became the Durham Papers, secured a place in the vaults of the Public Archives of Canada for one of Canada’s most controversial Governors General and established Durham’s 1838 mission to British North America as a “milepost moment” in the annals of Canadian national history. RÉSUMÉ Cet article se sert du concept de « l’histoire d’archives » (« archive story »), élaboré par Antoinette Burton, pour explorer comment Arthur George Doughty a constitué la collection des Durham Papers. Il fait revivre « l’histoire d’archives » de Doughty, qui avait été reléguée aux archives de l’institution même qu’il avait tant oeuvré pour fonder. Cette histoire de Doughty montre que les archivistes, ces gens qui acquièrent, classent et décrivent les matériaux dont les historiens se servent pour écrire leurs ouvrages, façonnent eux aussi l’histoire. L’intérêt que portait Doughty pour l’administration de Lord Durham et les vingt ans de travail qu’il a consacré à l’acquisition des documents qui ont constitué la collection des Durham Papers ont fait en sorte que les voûtes des Archives publiques du Canada purent accueillir la collection d’un des gouverneurs généraux les plus controversés au Canada, tout en démontrant que la mission de Durham dans l’Amérique du Nord britannique en 1838 fut un moment important dans les annales de l’histoire nationale canadienne.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".