9. Reconstructing north America: the borderlands of Juan cortina and Louis riel in an age of national consolidation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
iewed from a continental perspective, the consolidation of national sovereignty in mid-nineteenth-century North America was a matter of three comparatively strong central governments, with some basis in popular sovereignty, conquering or incorporating other powers claiming sovereignty.Seen from above, as if looking down on a modern map or computer screen, one would see these three powers emerge-sequentially, the United States, Mexico, and Canada-and spread whatever colors the mapmaker chose to denote them across the continent's map.A more complicated representation might show a darkening of each color within national boundaries to represent the greater uniformity of sovereign power, as national law and authority became more uniform in the domain of their sovereignty.Sovereignty has always been a matter of competing and contested claims.To nationalize the continent, these three states had to avoid the centrifugal forces of disunion within their boundaries (a loose confederation for Mexico, secession by New England or nullifi cation by southern U.S. states, the persistent challenges of holding the loyalty of French Catholics in a polity controlled by English Protestants in British North America) and sometimes breakaway provinces and regions (Yucatán and Tabasco in Mexico, the Kingdom of Deseret and the Confederacy in the United States).And, of course, in a sense all three states were empires, conquering and subordinating the continent's native polities as well as occasionally fi ghting one another.Canada, Mexico, and the United States were diff erent countries born out of distinct (if interconnected) circumstances.All three were premised on the idea that legitimate sovereignty derived from the consent or support of the governed.Even Canada, which is not a republic and which Andrew Smith points out in this volume chose to remain a part of empire, emerged in the 1860s as a
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".