Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract By providing for freedom of worship among Catholics in the conquered Province of Quebec, the Quebec Act (1774) later proved to be one element in the long and complicated process of Catholic emancipation in Britain, Ireland and the empire. Historians have examined the press campaign against the Quebec Act, contrasting the culture of Enlightenment toleration among its drafters and defenders with the Protestant zealotry of its opponents and, latterly, the Gordon rioters in 1780. But this characterisation neglects the ecclesiological debate about the connection between the legislation and the Hanoverian church–state relationship. Drawing on Enlightenment critiques of priestcraft and superstition, opponents of the Quebec Act claimed that it established, rather than tolerated, Catholicism. By contrast, defenders of the Quebec Act argued that priestcraft and superstition were declining among Canadian Catholics and that enshrining the right of Catholic priests to collect tithes did not represent a church establishment. The debate turned on the problem of Catholic loyalty in a Protestant state. Opponents of the Quebec Act held that Protestants alone could reconcile secular and spiritual loyalties through the royal supremacy. Supporters of the Quebec Act not only claimed that conquered Catholics could be loyal to the imperial state, but also that they merited a bishop and endowed priests to perform the public offices of their faith, holding out the possibility that Catholicism could be a civil religion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".