Pétition demandant une Chambre d’assemblée
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une pétition de francophones et d’anglophones exige en 1784 une Chambre d’assemblée. Cette pétition est significative car elle marque le début explicite de la tradition démocratique chez les Canadiens de l’époque, c’est-à-dire les Canadiens français. Sur les 2291 signataires, 855 sont d’anciens sujets (des immigrants britanniques) et 1436 des nouveaux sujets (des habitants de la colonie canadienne). C’est l’historien Pierre Tousignant qui a rétabli la vérité historique en montrant que les auteurs des Documents constitutionnels cités ci-après n’avaient publié que la liste des signataires anglophones de la pétition (p. 485-490 de la présente source), donnant ainsi à penser que la démocratie n’avait été désirée que par les Britanniques de la colonie. Voir Pierre Tousignant, « La genèse et l’avènement de la Constitution de 1791 », thèse de doctorat en histoire, Université de Montréal, Montréal, 1971, p. 447-459.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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".