E. A. Heaman. Tax, Order, and Good Government: A New Political History of Canada, 1867–1917.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past several years, study of the Canadian state has yielded new understanding on a number of fronts. A deeper appreciation of federalism and provincial power has been produced. Grasp of the role played in the state’s formation by Lockean concepts and ideas drawn from civic republicanism is more firm and assured. The avenues along which sentiments of citizenship and belonging developed are clearer. Now, E. A. Heaman’s imposing book Tax, Order, and Good Government: A New Political History of Canada, 1867–1917, opens more fresh territory and unexplored ground. Heaman’s center of interest is the measure in which state making in Canada is linked to privilege, inequality, and moves to create elite-serving government instruments. Organizing her book in terms of “the new political history that sees both a top-down state and a bottom-up one that people continually constructed for themselves” (463), she identifies a state apparatus shaped by contestation between elite groups above and formations resisting and struggling at levels below. Elites, she argues, used their dominance to orchestrate the British North American (BNA) union of 1867 not in “intimate involvement with the everyday life of the people, [but in] intimate involvement with the banks, railways, and manufacturers” (127). By 1917, she concludes, that dominance had weakened; the wealth-targeting Income War Tax Act of that year had passed; there was “a very different state from that of the BNA Act. The needs of the weakest, which fiscal austerity had written out of federal politics, had written themselves back in again” (426).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".