Perceptions of an imperial crisis : Canadian reactions to the "Sepoy Mutiny", 1857-8
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1857 many native civilians and soldiers in northern India rebelled against British rule. The so-called "Sepoy Mutiny" sparked a world-wide debate about the nature of British imperialism and about the character of its Asian subjects. This study examines the scope and causes of reactions in the United Province of Canada, the "senior" colony of the Empire. Contemporary newspapers are the main historical resource for both explicit reactions and implicit imagery about the conflict. All the perceptions were based on prejudices which pre-dated 1857. The war did not create any new images or even alter existing ones. Rather, it seemed to prove what Canadians had thought about India all along. The main issues were the "character" of the Indians, the nature of British imperial government, the causes and justice of the revolt, the morality of the "atrocities" and of reprisals and, implicitly, what the war meant for Canada. All Canadians shared the racist assumption that Europeans were superior to coloured people. On every other issue Canada's anglophone and francophone communities differed sharply. English-Canadians rallied to the flag; French Canada responded with its traditional anti-British, isolationist perspective, a legacy of the Conquest of 1759. The culminating reaction was that many British-Canadians volunteered to fight in India. Westminster responded by founding the 100th Royal Canadian Regiment. The first colonial regiment raised specifically for imperial service, it was meant to be the first step in a conscious effort to tighten imperial unity. The plan was the product of a momentary crisis mentality which did not deflect the long term trend toward imperial de-centralization. English-Canadians and French-Canadians saw almost every aspect of the war from different perspectives. Ethnic cleavage, far more than sectarian or class rivalry, was the distinctive feature of Canada's reactions to the "Mutiny".
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".