MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460740233 · doi:10.3828/qs.2016.s8

“The Same Force, Authority, and Effect”: Formalizing Native Property and British Plurality in Lower Canada

2016· article· en· W2460740233 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julia Lewandoski

Bibliographic record

VenueQuebec Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFreeholdEstateLand tenureIndigenousColonialismPolitical scienceAnnexationEthnologyDominionGeographyLawEconomic historyEconomyHistoryArchaeologyEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1790s Lower Canada, British officials pursued a pluralist land tenure policy, establishing new Loyalist freehold townships while allowing the French seigneurial estate system to continue. The extension of French land tenure into the British era also made the status of Native land highly ambiguous. This was a legacy of Jesuit mission involvement with Native villages in the St Lawrence Valley, and of the fluidity of indigenous landholding within French land tenure in general. This case study of two Abenaki Indian places in 1790s Lower Canada demonstrates some unexpected British responses to these complexities. Scholars typically emphasize British colonial desires for consistent, coherent land tenure in general, and preference for freehold land tenure in particular. Yet in their treatment of Abenaki land, British authorities sustained French ambiguities and even created a new anomaly in their own township system. Rather than masking these varieties, British surveyors chose to display the uncertainty, plurality, and anomaly of Native land tenure on the maps they made of Abenaki land.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0420.029
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuebec StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207