Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article argues that Canadian historians should teach more of the law, and not just the politics, of Confederation and the British North America Act, 1867 (bna Act). It proposes three themes grounded in legal history that can offer students new perspectives on what they often see as the over-familiar and underwhelming events and aftermaths of 1867. It suggests, first, that instructors should wade into the court battles and the constitutional theories that followed Confederation, highlighting the power of the internal mechanisms of law and legal theory as historical forces. Second, it argues that instructors can recast the post-Confederation period as an era of constitutional experimentation and often-abortive institution formation in which governments invoked the bna Act to expand the new federal state, but often failed in their efforts because of legal and political divides. Finally, it shows how historians can connect the bna Act to the emergence of individual and group constitutional rights by focusing on how some post-Confederation jurists attempted to use different varieties of legal theory to create judicially enforceable rights regimes. In so doing, historians can teach students both about the deep roots of Canadian rights culture and about the fragility of rights that are not guaranteed by clear constitutional text.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".