Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his famous 1839 call to reform, John George Lambton, Earl of Durham, recommended that Upper and Lower Canada be accorded responsible government by uniting the two provinces under a single legislative assembly - a union which would also bring about the assimilation of the French-Canadians. The Report has been criticized ever since - from British imperialists who found it dangerously liberal to French Canadians who despised Durham for his presumed racism. This new edition of Gerald Craig's abridgement retains his 1963 introduction and adds essays that debate Durham's political assumptions and goals, re-examine the philosophical and historical context in which the Report was created, and review the Report's reception and influence. Janet Ajzenstat reconsiders the report in the context of nineteenth-century debates about the relation between culture and political institutions, arguing that Durham should be seen as a progressive universalist opposed to the divisions of race and creed who wanted to give more freedom to French- and English-Canadians alike. Guy Laforest re-examines the report in terms of British liberal imperialism and twentieth-century English-Canadian perspectives to argue that Durham was a one-sided sociologist and the first in long line who used liberalism for imperialist purposes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.012 |
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".