Bibliographic record
Abstract
The linkages between myth, public memory, and the construction of nationalism are profound. Since the nineteenth century, historians, intellectuals, and politicians have reflected, critiqued, and shaped the enduring notion that Canadians have constructed a “peaceable kingdom” in North America. Although the subject matter and thrust of their efforts varied dramatically, the ease in which the peaceable kingdom became embraced suggests that by the early twentieth-first century the ideal is firmly entrenched as part of Canada’s cultural and scholarly orientation. Its persistence can be explained to a great degree because it has proven to be remarkably elastic; its appeal reaches across ideological and cultural divides. This article explores two intriguing paradoxes related to these developments. First, the peaceable kingdom ideal often chafes against the country’s narrative because from the earliest moments of European contact with Indigenous peoples through to the recent past with the country’s participation in the Afghanistan war, Canadians have engaged in violent episodes and armed conflict. Second, even historians and other scholars who argue against the substance of the peaceable kingdom idea are prone to using the myth as a popular reference to draw attention to their work or frame their research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".