The Reaction of the City of London to the Quebec Resolutions, 1864-1866
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines how British investors reacted when the Quebec Resolutions were published in the fall of 1864. Although the responses of bond markets are briefly considered, the paper is mainly based on non-quantitative sources such as newspaper editorials and correspondence. Examining why British investors generally approved of the constitutional plan contained in the Quebec Resolutions is useful because it illuminates such important themes as the place of imported capital in Canadian state formation, the role of Britain in Confederation, and the viability of interest-group explanations for the making of colonial policy. The ideas of British investors are also important because British capital helped to finance the public works that were a sine qua non of Confederation. In 1866, Joseph Howe identified pressure from the bondholders of unprofitable Canadian railways as one of the major factors driving the British government’s support of Confederation. Although Tom Naylor and other historians have made use of Howe’s insight, the role of the investors has been ignored by both Ged Martin and by those scholars who advance an ideological-origins explanation of Confederation. This paper will help remedy this oversight and is a step towards a viable materialist interpretation of why Confederation happened in the 1860s.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it