MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965344421 · doi:10.1111/1467-6443.00133

Canada as Reflected in her Participation in the Coronation of her Monarchs in the Twentieth Century

2001· article· en· W1965344421 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kenneth Munro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Historical Sociology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronationMonarchyCeremonyProcessionEmpireNavyColonialismAncient historyJurisdictionIndigenousHistoryPolitical scienceLawPower (physics)InstitutionPoliticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution of the Crown from an institution imposed by colonial powers to one that has become uniquely Canadian is symbolised through the rituals and ceremonial of the Coronations of Canada’s Monarchs in the twentieth century. This study reveals the development under the Crown of an indigenous honours system instituted to celebrate the achievements of Canadians. The granting of honours by the sovereign for the Coronation changed from British, to distinctively Canadian ones. In addition, the gradual evolution of the Canadian military from militia to regular army, navy and air force is seen in the Canadian military’s participation in the Coronation Procession. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, through their various transformations, represented Canada’s values of “peace, order and good government” and had a place of prominence at all four Coronations. Canadians saw themselves as an important and integral part of the British Empire in 1902 and transformed to an independent and respected people with considerable world power and influence by 1953. Through the Coronation ceremonies, Canadians publicly celebrated their ideals as a people and reflected their “national” character to the world while at the same time rooting the Crown more deeply in Canadian soil.

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 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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Historical SociologySame topicAustralian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207