Bibliographic record
Abstract
The invitation to write this preface has been not only an honour but an opportunity to enlarge my understanding of Canadian history.I am not Canadian and am a novice (till now a stranger) in the field of Canadian history; but I begin to see what it has been and what may be its place among the many histories, emerging, converging, and diverging, that go to make up British history as we are beginning to understand it.The premise and paradox of this historical field is that the term "British" is, and has always been, problematic; historians need to know what they mean by it, and the actors they study gave it more than one meaning and used it in more than one way.Yet its problematicity provides its continuity, and we need to avoid the assumptions that the problematic is necessarily fragile, and that the questionable is always about to run out of answers.If we ask what "British" has meant, we will be given many answers; that these answers cannot be reduced to singularity does not mean that they will cease to be given.Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick may not, in the period of this volume, have been collectively known as "Canada"; it is a question, to be answered by historians, when this entity began to be spoken of.The subtitle before us speaks of "British North America"on the other coast of the American continent there began to be something that would be called "British Columbia" -and it is the adjective "British" that the following chapters explore.Its use denotes a continuity that was more than a survival.We conventionally speak of "the fall of the first British empire," "the loss of the American colonies," and so on; but in the Laurentian region (and, in another history, the Caribbean) there continues to be a British America, and we do not fully understand the history of the American Revolution unless we recognize that "Canada" was one of its outcomes.This is probably a commonplace to Canadian historians, but those of the United States are not the only
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.711 | 0.629 |
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".