Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historical accounts of commissions of inquiry in Canada make only passing reference to the seminal 1846 Inquires Act. None explore the provenance of this legislation beyond a few sentences of the most general conjecture. This paper contends that Canada’s first Inquiries Act was a by-product of a political crisis that grew out of the politics and institutional processes integral to the resolution of claims for rebellion losses in Canada during the 1840s. As the events associated with the passage of the 1849 Rebellion Losses Bill would disclose, this crisis posed an existential threat to the viability of the Union. The passage of the Inquiries Act, precipitated by the immediate contingencies of the rebellion losses crisis, marked for Canada a fundamental shift in constitutional authority dating back to 1688. The Act embraced methods of inquiry denied to the Crown since the late seventeenth century. Though created by a democratic legislature, the Inquiries Act revived a Crown-driven inquisitional approach to public inquires long since inoperative in Great Britain. The Act thus marked a shift in the relationship between state and citizen, and opened a new terrain for the long struggle to protect the individual against the all-powerful state.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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".