Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the construction and contestation of Anglo-Canadian identity from the end of the War of 1812 until Confederation in 1867. It argues that the conflict between English- and French-speakers in the Canadas was by no means inevitable but a function of the institutional and political circumstances of the time. It seeks to complicate the picture of the British in Canada by demonstrating that they were a diverse community of different groups, institutions and religions that only through struggle and the incentives of party politics were able to unify themselves into a single culture. The development of party politics not just coincided with the creation of Anglo-Canadian identity but played a fundamental role in creating it. Through the burgeoning newspaper industry, the Reform and Tory parties spread their ideas of what it meant to be British, loyal and Canadian to a widespread English-speaking audience. Canadian history in this period is better understood not in the traditional dualist framework of British against French but as the complex interactions of many different groups, including the English, the Scots, the Irish Protestants, the Irish Catholics, the Americans and the French-Canadians. The thesis seeks to deconstruct the terms ‘British’ and ‘loyal’. Both terms were appropriated by various individuals and groups seeking to gain benefits by defining themselves as such. Until the early 1830s, attempts were made to include certain classes of French-Canadians within the broader British polity and identity. The 1837 rebellions marked the ‘othering’ of French-Canadians. Meanwhile the Upper Canada rebellions presented an enemy in the United States and a new strain of anti-Americanism, separate to that of the loyalists, was developed. By 1849, the moment of the rebellion losses crisis, the fundamental tenets of the Anglo-Canadian identity had been established: anti-Americanism, a concern about French political influence and a sense of kinship with English speakers across the province of United Canada. These three periods are shown to have played a crucial role in the development of an anglophone identity that encompassed the whole of United Canada.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".