Adjusting the horrors of civil war. Reforming the senate in small power democracies in the nationalistic crises of the 1860’s: Canada, Denmark and Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1860s, political crises erupted in the Atlantic world which had repercussions on political thinking about parliamentary systems. Conservative forces gained control in several small powers in the North Atlantic after the preceding more liberal decades had, according to many, contributed to revolution and war. This paper is about this conservatism: the political discussions and its sources of inspiration. We focus on the role assigned to senates as a safeguard against nationalism and civil revolt in the cases of Canada, Denmark and Sweden.In Canada the American Civil War and nationalistic and ethnic conflicts all over Europe were interpreted as the outcome of (too much) democracy and nationalism. To prevent the ethnic groups in Canada to tear the country apart, revision of the parliamentary system seemed unavoidable. This presumption resulted in the conservative Constitution Act, 1867. A new senate, independent from the votes of the people, was considered pivotal for the country. In Denmark, the fanaticism of liberal-nationalists was found responsible for the loss of Schleswig and Holstein. The liberal constitution of 1849, inspired by both the Belgian and American constitutions, was put aside. The new constitution in 1866 gave senate and king far more power and its composition was ‘safely’ revised in a more conservative way. In Sweden the liberal Dutch constitution of 1848 initially had inspired politics. The fear of the effects of liberal and nationalistic resentments, which became manifest in Denmark in 1864, resulted however in conservative forces gaining more power in 1866. In the historiography of the countries involved, the crises of the 1860’s were until recently predominantly seen from a national perspective. This paper however, based on a re-interpretation of the relevant sources, wants to highlight that the political reforms of the 1860’s, at least in northern democracies, had a common background as well as purpose and were by contemporaries seen in an international and transatlantic perspective.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".