Storms, Roads and Harvest Time: Criticisms of Jury Service in Pre-Confederation Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EXAMINES ATTITUDES TOWARDS jury service in 19th-century colonial Nova Scotia.It argues that while a few Nova Scotians expressed views consonant with what has been called English "jury ideology" -that is, the idea that emerged in 17th-century England that juries were valuable protectors of individual freedom in the face of state oppression 1 -many more complained about jury service, avoided jury duty and called for limits on juries for ordinary civil and criminal business.In colonial Nova Scotia, difficult travel on bad roads, in poor weather and at inopportune times of the year made jury duty time-consuming, inconvenient and sometimes even dangerous.This demonstration of the reluctance of jurors to serve in Nova Scotia both amends and extends David Murray's finding that men in one Nova Scotia township often sought to be excused from jury duty.Murray suggests that his research may be unrepresentative of attitudes to jury service throughout Nova Scotia and argues that the jury remained important to the colonial elite of Nova Scotia.He asserts, for example, that "Nova Scotia's elites were especially vocal in their support of juries" 2 though he offers little evidence in support of this proposition.As will be shown here, the reluctance to serve as jurors was, rather, a common view throughout Nova Scotia.3 This attitude towards jury duty played an important role in weakening the jury's 1
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 | 0.013 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".