A Taxonomy of Methodological Approaches in Recent Canadian Legal History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LEGAL HISTORY as a sub-field of Canadian history in the late 1970s, a number of scholars have published reviews and historiographical essays discussing the state of legal-historical scholarship in Canada.Early review articles were calls to arms.They argued that legal history was a potentially valuable area of historical inquiry and warned of the dangers of "internal" legal history -the study of legal doctrines and institutions isolated from social context. 1 More recently, with a growing body of work that frequently draws heavily from social and cultural history (and thus avoids the internal legal history critique), scholars writing review essays have evaluated the steady stream of publications rolling out of the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History and the University of Toronto Press as well as the occasional volume published by other academic presses.These authors identify remaining gaps in the historiography, but are generally pleased by the continued growth of the field.2 Thus, while as late as 1992 Greg Marquis declared in Acadiensis that legal history was "one of the most neglected branches of social history in Canada" that was "[i]gnored by mainstream journals and conferences", 3 John McLaren recently asserted that Canadian legal history has "come of age" 4 -a point substantiated by the Canadian Historical Association's decision to award Jerry Bannister's study of law and government in Newfoundland with the Sir 1 See, for example, R.C.B.
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 | 0.049 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.078 | 0.127 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.042 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".