Prince Edward Island Acadians in the 1760s and Beyond, and Their Ambivalence in Taking the Oath of Allegiance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
FEUDAL TIMES in Europe. 1 Oaths, or pledges, were an essential part of the contracts between land-holding nobles and lower class persons benefitting from the use of land. In the 17th century it became common for the monarchs of European countries to require subjects to pledge loyalty through an oath of allegiance in return for certain protections and rights. This was particularly important to monarchs in times of political turmoil, rebellion, and civil war, when royal authority could be challenged and sovereigns overthrown. During the Jacobite uprising of 1745 and 1746, for example, it was very important for the Protestant George II and his government officials to know whom among the populace supported them and who did not. Kings and queens relied on oaths of allegiance as a means of obtaining or demanding loyalty; those who refused could be banished or face other penalties. Concerns relating to loyalty to the British Crown spilled over into the colonies, including Nova Scotia, particularly in the early 1750s, as this was a time when tensions between Great Britain and France were significantly increasing. The Roman Catholic Acadians greatly outnumbered British settlers in Nova Scotia, and they were suspected by colonial officials to be still yearning for a restoration of Acadia to France. 2 The oath of allegiance of the 17th century, both in England and France, was infused with religious overtones, and taking the oath was not something to be done lightly. As pointed out by Yves Durand, a 17th-century French dictionary compiler by the name of Furetire wrote: "The oath is therefore not a simple contract one can easily renounce; it is an engagement before God." 3 More modern versions of 1 The author is grateful to the anonymous reviewers of earlier versions of this research note for their many helpful comments and suggestions. 2 In Canada today
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".