MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013957620 · doi:10.1353/ncr.2003.0055

Jefferson Davis on the Plains of Abraham

2001· article· en· W2013957620 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas Leon Loebel

Bibliographic record

VenueCR The New Centennial Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWifeState (computer science)MetaphorIronyFaithLawNoticeUncannyAdventureHistorySociologyPolitical scienceArt historyPsychologyArtPhilosophyPsychoanalysisTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My title is a metaphor, for it is doubtful that Jefferson Davis actually spent time as far east in Canada as Quebec City. Neither his financial situation nor his state of mind would have had him venture too far from Lennoxville in the Eastern Townships of Quebec, where he had moved in October of 1867. Encouraged by James Mason to come to Niagara to join other high-ranking Confederate expatriates, Davis declined. While the unpleasant irony of Niagara as the site of freedom at the end of the Underground Railroad for escaping slaves might have weighed on his mind, Davis opted for the more familial choice of Montreal, where his older children had lived throughout the Civil War in the care of his wife's mother. 1 Yet it is also a metaphor for Jacques Parizeau in 1995, whose dramatically orchestrated "Preamble" to the Déclaration de souveraineté du Québec creates an uncanny feeling for students of American history. "We entered the federation on the faith of a promise of equality in a shared undertaking and out of respect for our authority in certain matters that to us are vital. But what was to follow did not live up to those early hopes. The Canadian State contravened the federative pact by [End Page 109] invading in a thousand ways areas in which we were autonomous, and by serving notice that our secular belief in the equality of the partners was an illusion." 2

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCR The New Centennial ReviewSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207