Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars have discussed the role of romanticism in the condescending attitudes of Upper Canadian conservatives toward Indigenous peoples but they have yet to examine its role in the political culture of settler society; specifically, as it applies to the political ideology of Tories, the group that prevailed in bustling towns and embryonic outposts alike. Weaving together intellectual history, the history of emotions, and environmental history, this article explores the romantic tradition’s salience within the mentalité of Upper Canadian conservatism. It contends that influential figures from the worlds of politics and literature repeatedly invoked aspects of romanticism over several decades in denouncing subversive phenomena and in seeking to legitimize their vision of a hierarchical society. In particular, they drew on such compelling romantic tropes as powerful emotions and the magnificence of nature in the hope of bolstering a social order predicated on elite hegemony and rank-and-file deference. This helps to shed light on one of the animating factors within the Tory tradition, a multifaceted force that, for good or ill, has played an important role in shaping Ontario’s history.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".