MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1587585250 · doi:10.3138/jcs.40.3.68

A Very British Coup: Canadianism, Quebec, and Ethnicity in the Flag Debate, 1964-1965

2006· article· en· W1587585250 on OpenAlex
C. P. Champion

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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 Canadian Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBritishnessFlag (linear algebra)FLAGS registerEthnic groupEconomic historySociologyLawHistoryPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is usually assumed that the flag debate of 1964 was about replacing an outmoded British vision of Canada with the distinctive Canadianism of the Maple Leaf. In fact, the debate was not between “British” and “Canadian,” but between rival interpretations of Canadianism. Britishness and Canadianness were interpenetrated in both flags. Even if the overt Britishness of the Red Ensign was downgraded, the new flag was a less dramatic break with the past than is commonly thought. If it was not explicitly British in appearance, the new flag remained the product of a British world. In its design and implementation by a small Anglo-Celtic cadre in the government—with the country deeply divided and non-British groups largely sidelined—the Maple Leaf is, in some ways, the legacy of a very British coup.

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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