Une Constitution pour l’Empire : sur les origines de l’idée fédérale au Québec, 1765-1815
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le contexte du réaménagement de la gouvernance impériale qui s’amorce au milieu du XVIIIe siècle et se poursuit après la Révolution américaine, des officiers de la couronne dans les colonies anglo-américaines qui demeureront loyaux après 1783 tentent de jeter les bases d’une structure constitutionnelle impériale par la création d’une fédération des colonies américaines. Développés entre 1783 et 1815 dans les projets de William Smith et Jonathan Sewell, ces projets de fédération forment un pôle important du discours politique bas-canadien et ils définissent les mécanismes de la domination coloniale que les adeptes de l’Empire tentent d’imposer à la colonie après 1822. Dans le contexte politique bas-canadien, le fédéralisme représente donc un mécanisme de domination et un modèle de gouvernance permettant de perpétuer l’hégémonie politique impériale plutôt qu’une pensée annonciatrice de l’avènement du Canada moderne.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".