Bibliographic record
Abstract
DURING ITS 60 years of existence, the colony of Upper Canada was an odd political entity. Ruled by a constitution considered by most to be the best in the world, the province nevertheless experienced widespread political unrest, meddling governors, Gourlayite witch-hunts, and ultimately an armed rebellion. Both authors reviewed here take as their starting point the troubled relationship between the English constitution as applied to the colony and the mass of inhabitants who, as Upper Canada grew and matured, demanded in progressively louder voices a greater say in the terms of engagement between citizen and state. Jeffrey McNairn and Carol Wilton both bring into sharp relief the formation of a politically aware public and, further, attempt to assess the impact of this creation and its continuing legacy on Canadian political culture. A truly fruitful dialogue between the government and the governed depended upon many factors, but none, as McNairn makes clear throughout his study, was so clearly prerequisite as the development of public opinion. By this term, McNairn has in mind not the opinion polls by which the modern Canadian state is governed, but rather a less quantifiable state of social consciousness with its roots in the Kantian enlightenment. This public opinion was the outcome of prolonged public deliberation among diverse individuals listening to and participating in the free, open and reasoned exchange of information and argument. Public opinion was not arrived at
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".