Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Popular Politics and Political Culture in Upper Canada, 1800-1850 Carol Wilton shows us that ordinary Canadians were much more involved in the political process than previous accounts have lead us to believe.They demonstrated their interest in politics, and their commitment to a particular viewpoint, by active participation in the petitioning movements that were an important element of provincial political culture.Wilton demonstrates that by the 18305 the political energies of Upper Canadians were far more likely to be channelled through petitioning movements than election campaigns.Petitioning movements, which were connected not only with public meetings but with demonstrations and parades, were also increasingly associated with political violence.The resulting assaults, riots, and effigy-burnings -prominent features of Tory governance -not only contributed to the striking political polarization of the population but also helped provoke the Rebellion of 1837.Wilton provides new insights into the careers of leading figures, explores the developing ethnic and religious conflicts in the context of the petitioning movements, and illuminates the question of officially sponsored political violence.Through a thorough examination of primary resources, including a wide range of newspapers, Colonial Office records, published records of the Upper Canadian government, pamphlet literature, and private correspondence, Wilton demonstrates how the province's dissidents challenged established patterns of paternalism, subverted official notions of hierarchy, and promoted the development of an expanded public sphere in ways that had a lasting influence on the province's political culture.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.568 | 0.224 |
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".