La publication de procès et la constitution d'un espace public au Québec/Bas-Canada (Publishing Trials and Creating Public Space in Québec/Lower-Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Des brochures publiees entre 1767 et 1840 portent sur des proces qui ont eu lieu au Quebec / Bas-Canada. Or, a cette epoque, la province n'a pas de receuils consacres a la diffusion de la jurisprudence. Le but premier de ces brochures est de presenter une affaire judiciaire particuliere. Loin de se limiter a diffuser un jugement, la brochure comprend la reproduction des procedures ecrites et meme, a l'occasion, la transcription des temoignages rendus lors de l'audition. La publication de ces brochures est rarement justifiee par leur interet juridique. Elles ne visent donc pas a alimenter la communaute juridique en lui fournissant des sources qui pourraient etre utilisees, par la suite, devant les tribunaux. Aussi, les affaires retenues pour publication semblent avoir ete choisies en considerant l'interet qu'elles sont susceptibles de susciter dans la societe civile et non pas dans la communaute juridique. La publication de ces proces contribue vraisemblablement a forger un espace public, plutot qu'a edifier une jurisprudence coloniale. Les visees sont, en somme, plus politiques que juridiques. Ainsi, lorsque le gouvernement decide, au tournand du XIXe siecle, de publier une brochure qui comprend des pieces du dossier de l'affaire McLane, il entend contrer l'infiltration etrangere dans la province. Plus tard, lors de la revolte des Patriotes en 1837-1838, les publications de certaines affaires cherchent a montrer que les hommes poursuivis le sont pour des motifs politiques. L'ensemble de ces brochures temoigne a la fois de l'usage des affaires judiciaires dans la constitution d'une opinion publique et de l'autonomie limitee du champ juridique a l'egard du champ politique. English Abstract: There are brochures published between 1767 and 1840 regarding trials that took place in Quebec / Lower Canada. At that time, the province did not have reports focusing on the publication of case law. The First objective of these brochures was to present specific legal decisions. The brochures were not limited to the publication of a judgement, but also included the pleadings, as well as, occasionally, the transcription of testimony presented at the hearings. The publication of such brochures was rarely based on the judicial interest of the cases. The objective was not to provide the legal community with sources that could be used thereafter before the courts. The selection of case law to be published seems to have been based on what was likely to be of interest for the public at large rather than for the legal community. The publication of trials was designed for the public and was not an attempt at building up any sort of colonial case law. The objective was, in short, more political than legal. Consequently, when the government decided, at the turn of the XIXth century, to publish a brochure containing evidentary excerpts of the McLane case, it did so in an attempt to counter foreign infiltration in the province. Later, during the Patriots' Rebellion in 1837-1838, the publication of certain cases sought to demonstrate that prosecutions were based on political grounds. Overall, the brochures underscore that case law is essentially used to build up public opinion; they also show the limited freedom of the legal field versus the political field.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
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".