MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164095504 · doi:10.3917/parti.028.0205

Quand le pétitionnement contribue au façonnage de l’agenda politique. L’abolition de la tenure seigneuriale au Canada français (1849-1854)

2021· article· fr· W3164095504 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueParticipations · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On reproche souvent aux pétitions de n’avoir aucune efficacité dans le champ des politiques réelles. Or, l’histoire politique de la démocratisation nord-américaine nous montre que les pétitionnaires peuvent changer la donne et façonner l’agenda politique. Dans les années 1840 et 1850, les Bas-Canadiens (aujourd’hui, les Québécois) débattent de la question de la tenure seigneuriale, et des mécanismes pour la remplacer par une tenure allodiale (soit par une abolition immédiate, soit par une commutation, soit par une réforme plus graduelle). Après des décennies de débats, le Bas-Canada ne parvient pas à réformer la tenure seigneuriale. Mais à partir de 1849, les réformistes pétitionnent massivement, avec des demandes de plus en plus souvent écrites en français et de plus en plus radicales. L’agenda politique se transforme, et le Bas-Canada abolit la tenure seigneuriale en 1854.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.247 · 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