Preface and Acknowledgments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This two-volume collection has been assembled in recognition of the country's sesquicentennial, bringing together previously published scholarship on the people, ideas, and events associated with the passage of the British North America Act, 1867.This interdisciplinary project aims to capture the complexities of Confederation scholarship and highlights the evolution of its interpretation over time.The historical discourses underpinning Confederation studies reflect a series of complex and contested narratives that are foundational to our day-to-day politics.The goal of this collection is to set out these debates by providing not only "classic" studies of Confederation, but also scholarly work that challenges our conventional understandings and approaches to the topic.We seek both to understand the past and to gain insights into the challenges we face today and those we need to consider for tomorrow.Anniversaries, both personal and national, are very often fraught; the celebration associated with these moments is frequently alloyed by critical reflection, by alternative accounts that subject the conventional narrative to radical scrutiny.The alternative account that has called into question the Confederation celebrations of 2017 is the Indigenous story.For Indigenous peoples, the very idea that the "founding" of Canada in 1867 is the privileged political and constitutional moment in the lives of the peoples that live on the top of the North American continent is offensive.What about the treaties, signed by Indigenous peoples and the Crown, before and after Confederation, that sought to establish the relationship between Europeans and Indigenous peoples?What about the sorry record of treaty violation that followed thereafter?Indeed, what about the destruction of centuries-old Indigenous political and community development that was the result of European contact?For
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.239 | 0.157 |
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".