Jurys, participation civique et représentation au Québec et au Bas-Canada : les grands jurys du district de Montréal (1764-1832)1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude se penche sur la transplantation de l’institution des grands jurys au Québec/Bas-Canada. Dans la colonie, la sélection et la représentativité des grands jurys sont biaisées, mais pas selon le découpage classique entre Britanniques/Tories et Canadiens/Patriotes ; c’est plutôt le rang social, la profession et le lieu de résidence qui sont déterminants et les grands jurés représentent avant tout la bourgeoisie commerciale urbaine, canadienne et britannique. Le grand jury est certainement une partie intégrante de l’identité britannique et tory, mais aussi de la notion de citoyenneté des élites réformatrices, qui ne rejettent pas cette institution britannique. Enfin, les grands jurys jouent un rôle politique très important, quoique surtout au niveau local : en l’absence d’institutions municipales représentatives, ils permettent aux élites locales d’influencer une administration agissant directement sur leurs intérêts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".