MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131342934 · doi:10.2307/j.ctv1gm00jm.9

Quebec, Bengal, and the Rise of Authoritarian Legal Pluralism

2020· book-chapter· en· W3131342934 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christian R. Burset

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill-Queen's University Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEuropean Political History Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuthoritarianismPluralism (philosophy)Political scienceLegal pluralismDemocracyLawPhilosophyComparative lawLegal realismEpistemologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter is part of a collection of essays that reexamines the Quebec Act of 1774, which was a transformative event in North American and British imperial history. This chapter argues that the debate over the Quebec Act — and especially about its retention of French law — reflected a broader debate over the place of English law in the British Empire. Although that debate initially took place along partisan lines, it ultimately produced a new orthodoxy in Britain’s colonial legal policy. From 1774, the question would no longer be whether to embrace legal pluralism, but how.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill-Queen's University Press eBooksSame topicEuropean Political History AnalysisFrench-language works237,207