MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Lord and the Lawyer: Lord Durham, Edward Livingston, and Legal Accommodation in Louisiana

2019· article· fr· W3000887652 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Colonial History · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Le Rapport de Lord Durham (1839) est un document écrit pour guider la gouvernance britannique des colonies canadiennes, dont l’auteur recommande l’assimilation de la population française. Pour Durham, l’État de Louisiane peut servir de modèle parfait d’assimilation d’une population d’origine française en Amérique du Nord anglophone. Durham pensait que les Louisianais d’origine française avaient adopté une identité américaine quand la Louisiane fut incorporée dans l’Union des États en 1812. En réalité, les Louisianais, qui sont sous administration territoriale des États-Unis depuis 1803, ont pris des mesures pour protéger leur identité franco-louisianaise avant 1812, notamment en gagnant de l’influence dans un gouvernement territorial, et en passant des lois pour garder en vigueur la législation en place en Louisiane avant que Napoléon vende la Louisiane aux États-Unis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it