Bibliographic record
Abstract
T he conquest of Canada was followed by a period of transition which saw the establishment of the English administration in the former French possession, and the gradual union of the English “Thirteen Colonies” prior to the Declaration of Independence. It was more than a coincidence that the birth of the United States followed so comparatively soon after the termination of the French rule in Canada. One of the strongest ties which bound the Colonies to England was the ever-present fear of French aggression which was doubly magnified in the absence of an ocean boundary between the two territories. England's insularity had proved an agelong safeguard to her people, but her colonists could only view with apprehension the presence of a foreign power separated from them by artificial barriers. As early as 1748 the Swedish traveller Kalm had opined that the presence of the French in America would most effectually ensure the Colonies’ obedience to England, and at the close of the Seven Years’ War the Due de Choiseul (the negotiator of the famous “ Family Compact”) warned the English envoy at Versailles that the colonists would assuredly declare their independence as soon as France relinquished Canada. Nevertheless these emphatic warnings were disregarded, the Home Government conceiving that the increased prosperity consequent upon the English absorption of Canada would serve to bind the “Thirteen Colonies” more closely to the parent country. The new government was inaugurated by the division of the territory into three districts, Quebec, Three Rivers, and Montreal, which were placed under a military régime. This was, perhaps, unavoidable as the negotiations for a peace treaty continued for many months.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.008 |
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".