Bibliographic record
Abstract
In any attempt to explore how ideas about liberty were received, articulated, and implanted in British North America (later Canada), that congeries of seemingly mismatched colonies and commercial territories perched on the northern reaches of the continent, a preliminary difficulty presents itself: Canadian historians have traditionally not used the concept of liberty as an organizing device. As observed recently in striking fashion by Michel Ducharme: La liberté n'a jamais été abordée par les historiens comme le principe qui fonde la légitimité des relations de pouvoir et des rapports sociaux au Canada. Plus encore, la liberté, sous quelque forme que ce soit, n'a jamais été à la base d'aucune interprétation historique. Three sets of interactions have traditionally dominated the study of Canadian history: French–English relations, first in an imperial, then in a domestic setting, dominated by the idea of military, political, and cultural conflict; domestic–imperial relations, dominated early on by a preoccupation with the achievement of colonial autonomy and the road to nationhood; and Canadian–American relations, dominated by the desire to explain and justify the existence of the northern nonrebelling colonies. In none of these has the idea of individual liberty been seen as a motive force. In fact, quite the contrary: Canadian historians, both French and English, trying, as historians of most countries have traditionally done, to justify the legitimacy of their nation, have always written with a wary eye on the republic of liberty to the south.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".